Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:41, 15 November 2008 [1].

Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York)

Nominator(s): Jayjg (talk)

Currently a Good Article, this comprehensive and well-referenced article on a Lower East Side congregation has recently been improved, and I believe now meets the FA criteria. Jayjg (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images both images are free and seem to be ok with their licensing tags. Can the old picture be better asserted as to its publication date? --MASEM 05:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking a look. The Jewish encyclopedia (the source of the old picture) was published between 1901 and 1906. While I cannot pin down the specific publication date of this image any more exactly than that, I can say with confidence that it was published no later than 1906, and is in the public domain, as is the rest of the Jewish encyclopedia. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No real image problem on that end, I would just take a notch of effort to explain this situation in the image page just to be very clear that the work was published no later than 1906 and thus clearly PD. --MASEM 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that out. I've fixed the link titles, and deleted the dead EL. Jayjg (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (changed below) As an article on a listed building, historic landmark, currently unoccupied, the article is seriously deficient in material on the architecture, which is surely very easily available. I know you're not interested in architecture, but the comprehensiveness requirement mandates a decent section. The architects are only mentioned in the infobox, and the extraordinary style of the building is hardly adequately covered by just calling it Gothic Revival. The precipitous decline in attendence in later years needs more coverage. Linking the "Welsh" chapel to "Welsh people" is not really good enough. What would an "American chapel" be? Posek is linked twice, but never explained; some other terms could usefully be explained. Cantor needs a link. The prose gets a bit dense at times. Are no more illustrations available? Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the "posek" issue, thanks. Regarding the Welsh chapel, several sources, mention it, but none actually say what it means beyond that, so I'm not sure how to fix the issue. Regarding more illustrations, the building is padlocked, so it's hard to get in, but I'll try to get an interior shot. Also, I'd be happy to add more material about the architecture, but I'm not sure where to find it. Do you have any ideas? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link to Religion in Wales would be a start; "chapel" in Wales means a nonconformist church, probably Welsh Methodist. I don't know about books on NY architecture, except that they exist in superabundance. Try Dunlap's bibliography, or ask User:Wetman, who should know. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've changed the link. The books on New York architecture I've seen don't give much detail; I've added a little for now, and will ask Wetman if he knows of others. In general I find that there are very few even partially complete sources on Jewish congregations or their buildings, most sources have a few paragraphs at most, and usually much less. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of getting hold of:
  • Synagogues of New York's Lower East Side (ISBN: 0814725597)

Wolfe, Gerard R. , Washington Mew Books, New York, New York, 1978

  • Synagogues of New York City : A Pictorial Survey in 123 Photographs (ISBN: 0486242315)

Israelowitz, Oscar, Dover, 1982

  • Synagogues of the United States - A Photographic and Architectural Survey.

Israelowitz, Oscar, NY, 1992

  • American Synagogues, A Century of Architecture and Jewish Community

Gruber, Samuel D., Rizzoli, NY, 2003

  • Synagogue Architecture in the United States History and Interpretation

Wischnitzer, Rachel , Philadelphia, 1955. -The Wolfe surely must have decent coverage. What is the stone panel above the door? Is it a Hebrew inscription? Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do cite Wolfe in the article, but a different book. However, I've found what might be an even better source, the NRHP registration form. You can find it here: [2] Jayjg (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the intro, Ephraim Oshry is introduced as "noted", which is a potential peacock word. Can you replace it with a more factual description?
  2. The first sentence of the "Early history" section has four consequent citations, which seems like too much for such a short sentence. Are they all necessary?
  3. In the "Move to current building, Jacob Joseph" section, Joseph "lacked administrative skills", which is a bit POV. Maybe something like "had no administrative experience/training" would sound more neutral.

All in all, look very good :) -- Nudve (talk) 15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - Yohhans talk 05:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved, Yohhans talk 05:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs some touching up before it can meet criterion 1a. Yohhans talk 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • located at in a historic synagogue building - Something is amiss here. Should it be, "... located in an historic synagogue building ..."?
  • It was the first Eastern European congregation founded in New York City and the oldest Orthodox Russian Jewish congregation in the United States. - This needs clarifying. Is it currently the oldest Orthodox Russian Jewish congregation, or was it the oldest? I assume the former (the source seems to corroborate this), but the way the sentence is currently worded suggests otherwise.
  • Founded in 1852 by Rabbi Abraham Ash as Beth Hamedrash, it split in 1859, with the rabbi and the bulk of the members renaming their congregation Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, and the president and a minority of the members becoming Kahal Adath Jeshurun (the Eldridge Street Synagogue). - Snake sentence that needs to be split up into two or even three sentences.
  • From 1888 to 1902 the congregation was led by Rabbi Jacob Joseph, - Try not to use passive voice. This ought to be changed to "Rabbi Jacob Joseph led the congregation from 1888 to 1902, and was ..."
  • From 1952 to 2003 the congregation was led by Rabbi Ephraim Oshry - Same as the last sentence.
  • "However, the congregation dwindled and was unable to maintain the building, which had been damaged by storms and fires, and despite some funding and grants, was critically endangered." - This is a rather disjointed sentence and could be structured better. Also, this sentence doesn't really contrast with anything said previously, so the "however" is not warranted. It could be better replaced by "As time progressed,". Also, what was "critically endangered"? The building or the congregation? I suppose it's possible that it could be both, but even that is unclear given the way the sentence is currently structured.
  • raise an estimate $4.5 million → raise an estimated $4.5 million for repairs
  • was sharing facilities with a congregation on Henry Street. - Does that mean that they are not sharing facilities anymore? If that is the case, where are they now? If that is not the case, "was" should be changed to "is".

I've only had a chance to get through the lead, but this many problems in so short a space is worrisome. I'll look at the rest later tonight. - Yohhans talk 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation and careful read. Regarding your points, in order:
  1. Fixed.
  2. I agree the sentence is a bit long, but I think it's fully understandable, and other wordings I've tried were awkard. Can you suggest a better wording?
    I was thinking something like, "Founded in 1852 by Rabbi Abraham Ash as Beth Hamedrash, it split in 1859, with the rabbi and the bulk of the members renaming their congregation Beth Hamedrash Hagadol. The congregation's president, Joshua Rothstein, and a small number of the members eventually formed Kahal Adath Jeshurun (the Eldridge Street Synagogue)." What do you think? - Yohhans talk 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed per your suggestion, and Rothstein's name removed. He wasn't really famous enough to rate a mention in the lede. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fixed.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Fixed.
  6. Fixed.
  7. I've turned the section into a paragraph, in order to make it clear it's all as of 2008. The article uses the past tense, to avoid the issue of becoming out of date if the facts change. If the congregation moves to another location in 2009, or disbands entirely, it will still be true that "As of 2008" it was "was sharing facilities with a congregation on Henry Street."
Thanks again for your careful read, and I look forward to additional helpful advice and copyediting. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments - Yohhans talk 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, I like the changes you've made. Also, forgive me if it seems I'm being too picky. But, what better place to be picky about prose/grammar than at FAC right? And feel free to contest any of the changes I suggest. I promise not to be offended. :)
Actually, I really appreciate your thoroughness, and I hope you don't mind that I've interspersed my responses with your comments, for clarity and simplicity. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the way you responded is how I prefer it. It's a pet peeve of mine when people respond to my bulleted list with a bulleted list of their own below mine. As you said, interspersing only serves to promote clarity and simplicity. - Yohhans talk 14:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • congregation's existence Ash was not paid for his work as rabbi, instead earning a living as a peddler → "congregation's existence, Ash was not paid for his work as rabbi, and instead earned a living as a peddler"
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1852 it was located first at 83 Bayard Street
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and wealthy Sephardi Jews who sympathized with the traditionalism of the congregation's members - Is the bolded phrase really necessary? Because if it's taken out, it makes the sentence a lot easier to read
I thought the mention of their motivations was interesting and important, as did the sources - otherwise why would they support this congregation whose members were so different from themselves? Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that, but wasn't sure. Struck. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rapidly became the most important center for Orthodox Jewish guidance in the country" - Since this is a quotation, it should be attributed to someone.
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is beadle linked to shamash? Would it not make more sense to just either, A.) use the word shamash, or B.) link to beadle?
People complained about foreign words in the article, so I changed them to English ones. :-) Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but I still think that for clarity, you should link to the word you're using. I became quickly confused as to why I had directed to shamash until I went to the beadle article and found that shamash is Hebrew for beadle. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he ran a small food concession ... "food concession stand" maybe?
Done. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • of sponge cake and small glass - Probably would be better as, "of sponge cake or a small glass", yeah?
Actually, they got both for ten cents. A real bargain! Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Alright, that works for me. Thanks for clarifying. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • European Jews, who began - not sure the comma is necessary.
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to wikilink "immigrant Eastern European Jews" rather than "entering the United States in large numbers only in the 1870s"?
Yes it would. Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • viewing religion and the synagogue as marginal - not sure "marginal" is the best word here. How about something like, "... viewing religion and the synagogue as something minimal"? Minimal still doesn't feel quite right, but you get what I mean.
Good point. Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members took sides in the dispute - What does this have to do with Ash taking Rothstein to court? I think changing the beginning of this sentence gets across the same message in addition to making things flow better. Something like, "Following synagogue disturbances and a contested election among members, Ash took ..."
The point the sources make is that, rather than just being a dispute between the two men, the issue spilled over into the membership too, with opposing factions taking different sides, which in turn escalated to synagogue disturbances, contested elections, and finally a court case. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, might I suggest rewording that sentence to this? "Members took sides in the dispute[21] which led to synagogue disturbances, a contested election,[31] and eventually to Ash taking Rothstein to an American court in an attempt to oust him as president of the congregation." - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • adding the word "Hagadol" ("Great") to the original name - Not sure this is necessary. Earlier it is stated that Beth Hamerdash translates to "House of Study", and I think we can then infer from this that Hagadol means "Great"
The point I was (and I think the sources were) trying to make was that it was a not only a minor name change, but also one intended to indicate that Ash's faction were even "better" than those who remained with the president. I'm not adamant about this, but I like it because I think it is a palpable indication of the animus between the groups. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such animosity! And over religious quibbles, too. Who'd have guessed? - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think putting an {{otheruses}} link at the top for Beth Hamedrash Hagadol Anshe Ungarn would better serve to let readers know to what congregation you're referring. However, if you choose to leave it as a "not to be confused with ..." as johnbod suggested, then the right parentheses needs to come after the period in that sentence. That is, this, "by Hungarian Jews.)" needs to be changed to this, "by Hungarian Jews)."
Good idea. I've put {{Distinguish2}} at the top. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beth Hamedrash Hagadol provided, according to historian and long-time member Judah David Eisenstein, → "According to historian and long-time member Judah David Eisenstein, Beth Hamedrash Hagadol provided"
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and introduced some mild innovations - I just want to make sure your word usage here is intentional. By "mild" you mean not particularly controversial right? If that's not the case, then might I suggest changing this to "minor"?
Good point. Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, though the original founders of the synagogue had scorned the use of cantors, in 1877, the younger generation hired a professional cantor, Judah Oberman, for $500 per year, in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services[33] (and to attract new members). - It is probably safe to drop the phrase about the original founders scorning the use of cantors since it was mentioned a short while ago. This would allow you to change the rest of the sentence into something more readable: "... for $500 per year in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services, as well as to attract new members." If you feel that it is necessary to have that phrase in there ("though the original founders of the synagogue had scorned the use of cantors"), then disregard this comment.
Fixed, I think. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. By the way, you make the most readable long sentence I have ever seen. Except for maybe Thomas Hardy. Great writer, but I don't think the man knew how to end a sentence. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • traditional; men and women → "traditional. Men and women ..."
Sigh. Why do people so dislike semi-colons? They're a very useful punctuation mark. Anyway, I've changed it to your wording. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That they, are but sometimes a full stop just reads better. Gives the brain a chance to rest, you know? But, that's all my criticism was; I was trying to improve readability. If you prefer to use the semicolor, feel free to. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine, I've used your wording. People seem to object to long sentences, so it's probably better. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • for rabbinic ordination, and sponsored Talmud and Mishna study groups,[19] which were founded in the 1870s, and held both mornings and evenings. → "for rabbinic ordination. Additionally, Talmud and Mishna study groups, founded in the 1870s, were hold in both the morning and evening."
Done. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philadelphia's Jewish Record, but the → "Philadelphia's Jewish Record. However, the"
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • role of congregational rabbi,[35] at a salary - No comma.
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less characteristic of the style are the plain squared tops, with square windows, of the two front towers → "Less characteristic of the style are the plain square-shaped towers adorned with square windows"
Johnbod just added that, and I'm not sure exactly what he means by it, but I think he means the tops of the towers are squares, rather than point. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any way it can be reworded? It feels pretty awkward as it is. My wording does not have to be used, but it would be nice if the sentence was massaged a bit more. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All reworded Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • it may have originally been intended to complete these more appropriately. - Meaning... what? Add more decoration? Add spires? More glass? More buttresses? Assume the reader has no imagination and doesn't know what the Gothic Revival style is (probably a decent enough assumption).
Johnbod also just added that, and I'm not sure what he meant by that either. I'd prefer to delete it, but then it might piss him off, and reduce my chances of him withdrawing his "Oppose". :-) Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Fair enough. I'll let him respond then. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All reworded. I'm just not used to people who can't tell the difference between a Gothic tower and a plain oblong. Sorry about that. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ethnic makeup of the church's neighborhood was, however, rapidly changing, with native-born Baptists being displaced by Irish and German immigrants. → The ethnic makeup of the church's neighborhood began to change rapidly. Native-born Baptists were replaced by Irish and German immigrants."
Fixed, using a different wording. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, still not crazy about using "with" as a connecting word, but it works well enough. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The congregation would found the Fifth Avenue Baptist church, then the Park Avenue Church, and then build the Riverside Church. → "The congregation founded the Fifth Avenue Baptist church, previously Park Avenue Church, and then built the Riverside Church."
Actually, they founded them in that order, Fifth Avenue -> Park Avenue -> Riverside. I've modified the wording to make that more clear. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh... I see. That's more clear. - Yohhans talk 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to the New York Times report of the day. - 'the' New York Times report of the day, eh? Me thinks maybe this definite article should be an indefinite one. (change "the" to "a")
That was an insertion by Johnbod. I'm not too keen on it, and I don't think the claim is contentious, so I'm just going to live on the edge, and remove it. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gasp! Being bold? On Wikipedia? Umpossible! - Yohhans talk 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • seen in the old photograph above, - Err... with my screen resolution (1680x1050) it's actually to the left. How about just dropping "above"? That way you don't have to worry about people's screen resolution.
That was also some of Johnbod's material. I've removed the word "above". Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this reason a number - comma after "reason"
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, they hired → "They also hired" (what you had is fine, I just figured we'd throw in some variety since "in addition" is already used a lot in the article)
Much better, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the late 1800s, other synagogues in Manhattan each focused on a particular constituency, typically Jews from a single region or city in Europe. - Is the whole paragraph containing this sentence cited to Rischin? If not, this sentence needs a citation.
Good eye. Found a source, and cited it. Jayjg (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"
  • Oppose
  • Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (also Beth Hamidrash Hagadol or Beth Hamedrash Hagodol or Beth Midrash Hagadol) is an Orthodox congregation which was, for over 120 years, located at in a historic synagogue building at 60-64 Norfolk Street in Manhattan, New York, on the Lower East Side. - "At in"?
I thought I fixed that already! Fixed now. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the late twentieth century the congregation dwindled and was unable to maintain the building, which had been damaged by storms and fires, and despite some funding and grants, the structure was critically endangered. - Split this sentence, and remove "some".
Done. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2008[update] the Lower East Side Conservancy was trying to raise an estimated $4.5 million for repairs, with the intent of turning it into an educational center. - "Turning it into" → "converting".
Done. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The congregation moved frequently in its early years: in 1852 it was located at 83 Bayard Street, then at Elm and Canal, and from 1853 to 1856 in a hall at Pearl and Chatham[18]/Centre Streets. - That backslash format is odd.
Re-worded. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, he ran a small food concession stand in the vestibule; mourners who came to recite kaddish could purchase a piece of sponge cake and small glass of brandy for ten cents. - Remove "in addition".
Removed. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They attempted to re-create, in Beth Hamedrash, the kind of synagogue they had attended in Europe. - Not sure those commas are needed.
Commas are always a contentious matter of style. In this, and previous FACs, other editors have been encouraging me to add commas. I've removed them. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1859,[29] disagreement broke out between Ash and the synagogue's parnas (president), Joshua Rothstein,[9] over who had been responsible for procuring the Allen Street location,[30] and escalated into a conflict "over the question of official authority and 'honor'". - This is an example of the many sentences that are rather long and confusing. Try to break these long snakes into slightly shorter sentences, or alternatively (and more importantly), avoid excessive use of commas to improve prose flow. Some more examples:
Excess commas removed. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Men and women sat separately, the full service in the traditional prayer book was followed,[34] and the congregation still trained men for rabbinic ordination.
    • There the congregation's younger members gained greater control, and introduced some minor innovations; for example, changing the title of parnas to president, and in 1877 hiring a professional cantor, Judah Oberman, for $500 per year, in order to bring greater formality and decorum to the services[34] as well as to attract new members.
    • Designed in the Gothic Revival style by an unknown architect, its "characteristic features" included "the vertical proportions, pointed arch window openings with drip moldings, three bay facade with towers", and an interior that included "ribbed vaulting" and a "tall and lofty rectangular nave and apse.
As above, commas are a contentious matter of preference, with some editors preferring more, others preferring fewer. I've removed some more commas, and some sentences have been shortened. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, Talmud and Mishna study groups,[21] founded in the 1870s, were held both mornings and evenings. - Remove "additionally".
Another copyeditor told me to add it. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less characteristic of the style are the plain squared tops, with square windows, of the two front towers; it may have originally been intended to complete these more appropriately. - Needs a source.
It has been completely re-worked by the editor who added it a couple of days ago. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (or $300 per year — the following year a new cantor, Simhe Samuelson, would be hired for over three times as much, $1,000 a year). - Em dashes are unspaced.
Fixed. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop there, but the prose needs significant work. I strongly suggest you find a copyeditor to deal with the usage of commas and the length of sentences. It's an interesting article overall, though. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. As mentioned, use of commas is always a contentious matter of personal preference, and other copyeditors have insisted I add them, so I feel I'm kind of being whip-sawed here. As you can see (above) the article has already been read by quite a few editors, and had a thorough copyediting, though more eyes are always welcome. Do you have any other specific issues with the prose? Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, the usage of commas is often a personal preference, but it's still possible to get excessive. In any event, I've striken my oppose for now, not because I'm convinced the article meets the criteria, but because I don't want to hold it up until I get a chance to review the rest of the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I really appreciate that, though it appears something went wrong with your strike-through. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well written and comprehensive. Someone asked about the Welsh chapel. In case this is helpful, it seems to refer to an architectural style (as well as referring to chapels in Wales or built by the Welsh), namely a two-storey gable-end facade, often with three windows on the first floor and two on the ground floor. See e.g. Welsh Chapels by Anthony Jones, p. 59. [3] There's a reference to that particular Welsh chapel here. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think here it is a demoninational rather than architectural description. In Wales "chapel" is used as a demoninational term for nonconformists, especially Methodists, including as a descriptor of people. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The exact meaning of "Welsh chapel" is indeed mysterious; some sources, and editors, indicate it is a reference to religious practice, but the source you provide indicates it is an architectural style. Perhaps it was a mix of both. Unfortunately, regarding Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, the sources are frustratingly vague; they either state "Welsh chapel" or "old Welsh chapel", with no more detail. I've tried finding more information about this specific Welsh chapel, independent of Beth Hamedrash Hagadol, but with no luck. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: there are several dab problems. Cantor, sexton, and the dab template in the lead is irregular since it doesn't dab another article, and doesn't allow for correct punctuation on the footnote. I don't know how to fix it; hopefully someone will. I'm not sure if that non-standard use of a dab works with WP:ACCESS; it may be worthwhile to inquire there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beth_Hamedrash_Hagadol_(Manhattan,_New_York)&oldid=1138455975"