Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1

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 GrahamColm 10:43, 2 March 2012 [1].

---

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary/archive1

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me present you an article about the largest Russian Catholic church. The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary survived the Revolution, WWI, and WWII. During that time, it was used for other purposes, but finally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed and reconsecrated, and it is nowadays an active church.

The article just recently passed the second Good Article Nomination, it was copyedited by User:Binksternet, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:GiacomoReturned, User:Gandydancer, User:Mark Arsten, User:Jimfbleak, User:Wehwalt, and others during the mainpage appearance. Thanks again to anyone who assisted! :) It is a WikiCup nomination.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: GreatOrangePumpkin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just listed this article as GA quality, but it needs more expansion to become FA. For instance, it has nothing about the conflict with Eastern Orthodox leaders who did not want to have the cathedral restored, who did not appreciate Roman Catholics regaining a toehold in what they consider their territory: Moscow. There were Orthodox protests in 2002 but they are not summarized in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were no riots between those denominations. Of course the Orthodox criticized this decision, but after a while they have to forfeit anyway. I am not sure what 2002 protest you have in your mind, and I am not sure if they were influential and if we need to include this information on this article, as they could be just minor disputes. I only know one notable critical decision, but between the Russian Orthodox Church and Hinduism. But maybe I find something you have proposed. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The sense of "protests" I intended was not "riots" but publicised vocal and written complaints, non-violent activism against the Roman Catholic expansion signified by the restoration of the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ugh, why do we need this information? I believe it is way too off-topic, and I was not able to find such information; maybe I have better luck at the archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But I have no intention to travel only to find a few information. With the 2002 disputes, do you mean the signing of the "Venice Declaration of Environmental Ethics"? But I don't see why it should affect this church, but Alexy II just critized this decision. I assume it has nothing to do with this article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I added a sentence about Alexy II's response, but still think it is trivial.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, the Alexy II quote is fitting. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am striking my 'oppose' vote. I was mistaken in thinking that there was more missing content. The past friction between the Eastern Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics was not focused on the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to know what other reviewers think about this. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: The article does not actually look too bad; it's quite nice. But do not fully trust my remark as I have never read an article about churches nor have I been to one in quite some time. Brackets around ellipses are not necessary and are better removed. In fact, the "[...] [Every detail]" seems a bit redundant and probably does not even need ellipses as the "[Every detail]" takes the place of all that is omitted from the source. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the brackets. Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why were they removed from the "Every detail" as well? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now in brackets.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support with a few concerns (this article was really well done, by the way):

• "Bearing in mind the council's requirements, on 16 May 1895 the parish purchased a 10 hectare site on Malaja Grusinskaja street" - a bit awkward with the date right there, but I won't mind if it is left unchanged.
• "Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911." - could be tightened, maybe to "Groundbreaking was in 1899, and construction took place from 1901 to 1911." Now, you also don't have to use the word "until" twice.

• Reworded

• "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012). Much of the cost was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. More funding came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus." - these two sentences are a bit short, so you could connect them maybe? "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012), much of which was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow and Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus."?

• Reworded

• "Observers that argue for an earlier construction date state that they were damaged during World War II and left dismantled for some time." - "state" would be past tense, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

• Yes, it should be simple past. Changed.

• Per MOS, nbsps should be added before roman numerals, such as in "Pope John Paul II" and "Alexy II".

• Added

• Please check for overlinking: Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, stained glass, Saint Andrew and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow are linked more than once in the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delinked. Thank you very much for reviewing! --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure. The support was well deserved. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment, on a very quick glance, I couldn't find anything to complain about :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I do. It's a page with no conclusion and finale; it needs a "wrapping up" at the end to be a well written page. I have copyedited it, and it's a very interesting page, but everything needs a intro, information and conclusion. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a digital, and not a paper encyclopedia, there is no real "start" or "end". Wikipedia is not the ultimate encyclopedia with every piece of knowledge. Or maybe I incorrectly understand you; how about you give me an example of what you mean?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just basic rules of writing, one introduces the subject (the lead) then, then presents all the information in an understandalble form (chronologically/poltically or whatever depending on te subject) and then conclude by drawing together all the strings mentioned in the above and referred to in the lead. You cannot just finish a well written page by saying ".....(named after the patron saint of archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz), "Anniversary-2000" and "St. Victor" (named after the patron saint of Bishop Wiktor Skworc).." As it is, the page just stops in midflow, it does not end. Giacomo Returned 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo, I removed the brackets from the last sentence of the last section. I am still not sure how to "end" this article. The last sentence of the lead is about the listing, but unfortunately there is not much information about its legacy or reception. What I could do is to reinstate the organ disposition, but one user said it was unnecessary. Feel free to discuss this. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not expressing myslef very well; the page needs a final chapter/section (like in a book) uniting all the loose threads together - make a new final section and say what is going on there today (steal from other sections if necessary) - relate any plans for the future - you can even mention resident priests, numbers of the congregation - all that sort of thing - just leave the page on a positive note. Giacomo Returned 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see where Giano's coming from - often we have a "Popular Culture" or "cultural depiction" section. In this case it might be a "cultural significance/legacy" section - has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? Is this church seen as an icon? Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? Some of the material from the "Renovation and reconsecration" section might be expanded upon and placed in a "legacy/revival/cultural significance" section - has the pope been since 2002? How many times etc. I think this is doable and would be a fine way to end the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, there is not much information available. I am still not sure how to build such a section, as its reception was mentioned throughout the text. has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? No, there was no revival in Catholicism in Russia; quite the opposite: because of conflicts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, there were logically no revivals (see also Roman Catholicism in Russia). Is this church seen as an icon? No, as far as I know; mainly because Catholicism is a minority denomination in Russian, and the church was only for a few years active, among other issues. Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? see my first response; no, the church itself was not discussed (I am not sure what you exactly mean?) but the relation between the ROC. has the pope been since 2002? No; Pius XII never visited Russia; John Paul II never visited Russia despite expressing a desire; Benedixt XVI has not visited Russia yet. So I can't imagine the final section; maybe you could help somehow?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to help once I clear some other stuff. I'll have a think about how to approach this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now as Giacomo sadly Returnedired, it is unknown whether we can manage this anyway.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that we have no rules to minimise this unreadable clutter at the top of so many articles on foreign places and subjects. Here we have a good example of why some or all of the garbage needs to be footnoted or appear further down—not interrupting with more than three lines between the opening item (the subject) and the second item ("is"). I've indented to show the lineage against the infobox.

""The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Russian: Собор Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии Sobor Neporotschnovo Sachatiya Presvyatoj Devy Marii, in colloquial speech sometimes Костёл/Kostyol or Кирха/Kirkha – "the Catholic church") is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

The cyrillic scripts are in the Russian WP; that is why we have it. There's a quick link to their article at the left, if any English-speaker wants to see the cyrillic script. Funnily enough, we're not taught cyrillic at grade school. And why we need that and a transliteration of it in roman script, all aclutter at the start, eludes me. I look forward to the time when en.WP matures and can start an article thus:

The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

... with either a footnoted or the information in a less privileged place than in the first four lines of the lead. Ah, now I'm engaged and know what it is withough hunting through a jungle. Tony (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I'll back you on that, Tony1, but in the right venue. This FAC discussion is not the place. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the last part in the brackets. However, I must disagree with you to remove the original name in cyrillic; "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" is just a translation, so it is an inofficial name (as beside the Russian name there is no correct one for this church). The transliterated title is, logically, important for those who do not understand cyrillic. Furthermore, you are also incorrect that it is from the Russian Wikipedia, but from the German (which is a Good Article). Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic. The English title is just there for people who don't understand cyrillic, but still want to know its name meaning. So we could basically move it to the cyrillic title, but many won't like the idea. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic." ... errrr ... why? This is the English-language WP, not the Russian-language WP. I can cope with a short cyrillic string, but not an enormous, three-line interruption between the first and second items in the opening sentence. It's almost unreadable. The full cyrillic article is a click away, to the left. No other WP puts this enormous amount of unreadaable gobbledy at the opening. This is what the Russian WP inserts for St. Paul's Cathedral, for example: (англ. St. Paul's Cathedral). Your reduction of the cyrillic clutter and the transliteration in this nomination is welcome, but begs the question of why we allow editors to max out this valuable space at the top of an article with as much unreadable script and foreign-language transliteration as they can jam in. It is past a joke. Tony (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia is the biggest worldwide; the English language is the most spoken public language, enwp has more than 3 million articles; many readers are from foreign countries, including Russia. How about now?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason the Russian WP might be inclined to clutter the first four lines of its articles with three or four lines of English right at their openings. But they don't. Because it's rude to their readers. It completely dissipates the impact of the opening. And look, to the left a few centimetres in the English-language article (well, supposedly English-language): a link to the Russian article, complete with all of the cyrillic text you could ever want—that's why we have the links to the other WP articles to the left, isn't it: for Russian-speakers, whether native or non-native. This site is for those who want to read about the topic in English. There seems to be some objection to either (1) clicking to the native-language article if cyrillic text does mean more than a jumble to you; and/or (2) footnoting the gobbledy. What could possibly be wrong with a footnote—at least of most of the interruption, if you really can't bear to have no decorative script shoved into the opening sentence—to save the ruination of the first four lines for those who weren't privileged enough to have training in the Russian language? Tony (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think you are viewing an older version. I moved the cyrillic name to the infobox. I believe it is better as footnoting the clause. Just my personal taste, but let's see how others think. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I participated in a peer review of this article earlier, and all of the issues I spotted have been dealt with. The subsequent reviews and improvements by more experienced reviewers have only improved the article, I'm confident it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The article has improved to FA level. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your supports. What do you think about Giacomo's proposal to add a finishing section for stability?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (a Featured Article about another religious building in the former Soviet Union) right now, and that ends with a section on the building's architecture, so I don't think the current organization of this article should hold it up from promotion. It might still be a good idea to take a stab at closing the article differently, not sure that I could offer any good suggestions on how to close it though. Splitting the current use out of the history section and putting it at the end is the only idea that comes to mind, like in Stanford Memorial Church? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The last section of the Stanford church article mainly tells which denomination this church belongs to, the last section deals with weddings, church music and masses. I don't think any weddings take place in this cathedral; as for the church music and masses, this is mentioned throughout the text, so I don't think a new, final section is necessary.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have read through again, and made a couple of copyedits - it would be nice to have some sort of legacy section but agree with what GOP stated above - as such, if we can't construct one then it isn't a deal-breaker. Something could be said for keeping the structure as is, which is chronology then description, which a legacy section might not slot well in at the end. Anyway, a nice read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources in Russian, and found no problems. Could someone provide an image review, paying particular attention to Freedom of panorama? Graham Colm (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentar The title change by the nominator last month, removing the " , Moscow", was unwise and should be changed back. The article has a hatnote, and there are loads of other cathedrals, with loads of local languages, with this basic name. Given the unfamiliarity of the building outside (and even inside?) Russia, the vagaries of translation and the use of short names, the current title is both ambiguous and unhelpful for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it was unwise to move without discussing it. I explained on the talk page why it should stay as is.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten I moved it. Your only rationale was "This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment" which, if it is true, is only so in an extremely narrow way. Moving to Oppose for now as no FA should have a clearly ambiguous name. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception has no less than 35 entries, and yes, each one of them refers to the "Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary". At least 21 of them are in English-speaking countries and no doubt many have fuller formal names. A google search strongly suggests that the current name is not even the WP:COMMONNAME in English - plain "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception" is more popular, and there are "Blessed Virgin"s and "Most Holy Virgin Mary"s also. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you, I just moved the page to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). Note there are different Conceptions, such as Saint Anne's, so actually it was correct. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Oppose removed, thanks. The ", Moscow" would have better but whatever. There is only one Immaculate Conception - there was a legend that St Anne was herself the subject of a virgin birth but this is very different, & the idea was condemmed by the Catholic church centuries ago, & never made headway in any other Christian church. I hope I will have time to review the article fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the French church in the first paragraph of "History" appears to be misspelled (it should be "Saint Louis des Français"), but I couldn't find its name mentioned in the cited source. Could the nominator clarify? Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the name, although you can also write "c" instead of a "ç". The source uses a short name, and on its homepage it is called "Saint-Louis-de-Français". See also [2]--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Picking up on Giano's point above about the missing conclusion, what I think is missing is a concluding "Present-day" section or similar, to round the story off. The final paragraph of the lead tells us something about the cathedral's current use, but strictly speaking the lead ought not to include material not covered elsewhere in the article; rather it should be a summary of the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark Karsten was so nice to create this section. (Thanks Karsten! :))--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note - An image review is still needed, and a response to the remaining questions and comments. I have requested an image review on the WT:FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare regarding criterion three:
  • I understand there may have been concerns regarding FoP: Russia indeed does not have sufficiently free FoP; however, as Tomasz Bohdanowicz-Dworzecki died in 1920, the building would be expected to have fallen into the public domain (pma 70). No issues in that regard.
  • File:Catholic Cathedral Moscow Concept.jpg: the source does not attribute Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck as author. What is the basis for that claim and the related support for the pma 70 tag? If it were, for example, an artist's sketch based on Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck's "blueprints," it could have a separate copyright. Source, however, does appear to establish (if only implicitly) that the image was published before 1.1.1923, which would make the image PD in the US (the only jurisdiction about which Wikipedia is concerned) regardless of authorship; accordingly, it may be advisable to change the tag and to relocate the image to Wikipedia (as Commons requires an image to be PD in both the US and country of origin; image may well be PD in Russia in truth, but support therefor is not currently present).
  • No other issues noted. Эlcobbola _talk 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I think the addition of the new section has rounded the article off nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.