Talk:Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon)

Re-assessment

I have bumped this up to C class. It needs a little work to get to B, mainly some more history from founding until the 1990s would be good. Then, what about the building, other than LEED and the square footage? How tall/stories, color, style, etc. Also, generally you do not want one paragraph sections, and it would be great if the fuzzy issues (founding date and square footage) could be nailed down. Nice work getting the article this far. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. All good suggestions, though facts are hard to pin down. For example, as the article shows, three different sources give three different founding dates. I'll keep searching for more. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My friends may have some info about references--I'll see if I can find out anything. Katr67 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede

Appreciate the ideas for change, but an article lede should merely summarize material in the article, it shouldn't introduce any new information. That's why the lede also has only citations used elsewhere in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is generally excellent. Clear and easy to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is excellent, the article is well organized into sections, the use of an infobox is appropriate. All MoS guidelines appear to be followed to a T. (It's almost as if you've written this kind of article before!)
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are well-formatted and extremely well organized.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The sources are great: thorough and comprehensive.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All major questions answered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems with rambling or diversions.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems found. Where there is disagreement, footnotes show all viewpoints thoroughly.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not an issue at this time.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Sadly, there are no free images available at this time. However, multiple attempts are currently open, and images will probably be available in the future.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Informative and well-organized, meets all requirements.

Questions

• This article has no images. Wikipedia:Good article criteria says that a GA is "Illustrated, if possible, by images", and it seems like it should be possible to create or obtain photos of the building or people involved. On the other hand, the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles guideline says "Images are encouraged but not required." Have you tried to get images of this temple? What's the status there? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I looked on Flickr but couldn't find anything. I've now asked for images on the Oregon wikiproject and added the correct template to the top of this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • There are (non-free) photos on the congregation's Facebook page. It may be fruitful to try to contact the Facebook group, or the main webpage has contact information. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I've emailed Rabbi Maurice Harris, who is one of the listed contacts (and who has apparently edited the article fairly recently), and asked him if he could provide any. Given his apparent interest in the article, I felt he would better understand what Wikipedia is, and be more sympathetic to the request. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• I'm unclear about Kinberg's departure, in the "Schism" section. It seems like Kinberg signed a petition requesting that either the mechitza be removed, or those using it to leave. They left. And so then he left as well? I'm not clear on why. Also, the last paragraph of "Schism" says "During his tenure, membership rose from 118 to 350 families", but it's unclear whether that's his tenure in Beth Israel (and membership of Beth Israel), or his tenure (and membership) in the new synagogue mentioned in the previous sentence. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've re-worded those points to (hopefully) make it more clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Your edit definitely makes it more clear, thank you... but it introduces a new problem. Now there is a direct quote without an immediate reference. (And the next sentence has two refs, so it's not clear which one provides the quote.) – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• In "Attacks by neo-Nazis", it says that Chris Lord was motivated by a newspaper article, but I can't find that information in the sources. What's the source for that? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've linked the page number in the reference to the page on Google books. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see the info was in the source all along. My bad. Your edit makes this info more clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for reviewing the article and the improvements you made! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

sources

I found a few sources which might help expand the article:

• http://www.schirmerassociates.com/projects/temple_beth_sust.html landscape architects
• http://southeugene.kval.com/content/photo-exhibit-traces-history-jews-new-yorks-lower-east-side so-so coverage of photo exhibit
• http://tbieugene.org/steering_committee.html TBI steering committee: facilities insight

—EncMstr (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)