Talk:Oakland California Temple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleOakland California Temple has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 9, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Federal Aviation Administration uses the brightly lit Oakland California Temple (pictured) as a navigation beacon, despite complaints about light pollution?
Current status: Good article

Minor Exaggerations[edit]

The whole section about the Loma Prieta earthquake and then the Oakland Hills fire is ludicrous. Most every building in the SF Bay Area survived the earthquake undamaged, and the Oakland Hills fire was contained about five miles or so from the temple. This section may play well with folks from out of town, but looks incredibly weak to those of us who were here for both events. This section should be removed. Bring it back when the temple survives a 7+ EQ on the Hayward Fault that runs pretty much underneath it.

Also, the Golden Gate bridge is visible on just about every day - at least on the same days that SF is visible. --Fizbin (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the info for lack of any rebuttal.--Fizbin (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pageant ending[edit]

I put in the {{fact}} template - and spent about 20 min looking for a source for this - I am guessing the letter just went out and it will be on desnews.com or lds.org soon. I note that the website for the pageant has been taken down and is a redirect to search page. --Trödel 17:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the pageant section[edit]

I removed the section "And it Came to Pass" Pageant as it is not relevant to this article. It being close to the Temple does not make it a temple pageant. Gh5046 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added back so I'm going to remove it again. If someone can provide a reliable source that it is in fact a temple pageant, then it can be added back. The section has been lacking citation long enough to warrant removal. Gh5046 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this - there is no concensus to remove it - and it is related to the temple as much as all the other pageants. --Trödel 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus isn't needed when a source isn't provided within a few days of the "citation needed" tag being added. If I don't see a source provided in the next day or so I will remove the section again. Gh5046 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, why are you so insistent on a citation for this seciton. I am the one who added the citation needed request on the Christofferson letter in order to remind myself and others to get the reference once it is published in the Church News or Ensign. For now, I guess that the website was taken down will have to do.
Go find something useful to do rather than deleting text for which there is no legitimate claim that it is not factual --Trödel 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who added the citation needed tag, it only matters that it was there. Anyone at any time (within a reasonable amount of time after the tag is added) can remove statements or sections from an article if they aren't verified. That is the purpose of the "citation needed" tag, otherwise Wikipedia would have an awful lot of articles filled with those tags.
The only claim that it was actually a temple pageant I could find was on this article, and yes I did search for verification outside of wikipedia. Since you provided the link to the "LDS Pageants" article (which I changed to link to a google cache of the page) as a source I'm satisfied that the content is factual. Gh5046 (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if ldslivingmagazine.com is just temporarily down or permanently, but when it comes back up I'll change the link back from the cache, that is if someone else does not get to it first. Gh5046 (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LDSlivingmagazine is back up. Interesting view of what to do with tags. I suggest you try implementing that viewpoint across a wide variety of articles and see what kind of response you get.
To search for non-Wikipedia based verification I suggest you try adding this at the end of a google search (though they will probably work with yahoo or other search engines as well):
-wikipedia -gnu -gfdl
So a search on for this would be "And it Came to Pass" Pageant oakland -wikipedia -gnu -gfdl which returns 41 references. The best reference really is the journal since it is an independent peer-reviewed resource. However, like many good references they are not necessarily available online.
Finally, the citation request was only to Christofferson's letter, not the pageant in general because the stated source of that information was a letter with limited distribution that had not been reported widely in the press.
My point is that there are is a lot of BS in Wikipedia that should be shot on site; however, if there is a proffer from respected Wikipedians we should take that at face value and provide some time for the article to evolve to include the references, rather than threatening "Prove it or I'm deleting it." A very unhealthy and combative response, especially since there wasn't another single person who supported the deletion. Therefore, my suggestion to find something useful to do rather than stirring up animosity where there is no need to do so. --Trödel 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only animosity here is what you have drummed up. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
(Yes, I know recommending that article may be perceived as inflammatory, but hopefully you don't take it that way.)
I simply removed information that wasn't cited and that I wasn't able to verify. I was wrong that it wasn't factual, sure, but keep in mind the end result was verified valuable information for the article. Don't bury this with conceived animosity. Gh5046 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<---- Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, I feel you failed to assume that I was acting in good faith. First, I identified why I placed the {{fact}} tag (before you deleted the text). Second, I asserted that the pageant is related to the temple. Then you responded by removing it again (instead of discussing first) and said, "If someone can provide a reliable source that it is in fact a temple pageant..." (Bold added).
You followed response, where I admit I reacted poorly, by claiming that WP policy is any text can be removed if "a source isn't provided within a few days of the 'citation needed' tag being added" - a clear misrepresentation of policy that would only intimidate someone who hadn't been around here long. This type of impatience and discourteous behaviour is why I now average less than 100 edits per month.
Had you had some basis to challenge its veracity, or had it been in violation of the policies on living people, or had it been offensive, or silly, etc. then I would see things differently, but for a harmless assertion - that pageant is indeed a "temple pageant" you insisted on removal first then discussion.
I see acquiring resourced material for Wikipedia as very valuable (see templates and other edits from then). I'm suggesting that a "get a resource now or I'll delete again" attitude as being unhelpful. It is especially annoying when I'm the one who added the {fact} tag and your comment on the talk page doesn't address my reasoning for adding the tag. --Trödel 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to let this go bring it to my talk page. There is no need to continue this discussion here. Gh5046 (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies of protection[edit]

This section needs a reference. While I'm not contesting any of the individual facts there, putting them all together implies that the prophecy has come true. Who is saying this? Wikipedia requires citations for claims like these. Calibas (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the "prophecies," as they made no logical sense to begin with and are, in any case, wholly unencyclopedic. This is Wikipedia, not a Mormon religious tract. Qworty (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Fault Zone[edit]

The Hayward Fault Zone runs right under the temple. This USGS PDF explains. News reports often mention the temple as standing atop the fault.[1][2] The Northern California Geological Society published an analysis of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake showing a fault line directly under the larger auditorium building.[3] A brief mention of this is merited. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oakland California Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 02:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL based on criterion 3 (It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags.) and criterion 1 (It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria), specifically WP:GACR 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 current version has significant amounts of unsourced material, some of which has been unsourced for over a decade. There is material in the WP:LEAD which is unsourced there and not mentioned in the body at all. I'll add some maintenance tags to the article itself.

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.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oakland California Temple/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 03:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin this review shortly. Z1720 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall comments:

  • Citations are not necessary in the lede, per WP:LEDECITE
  • "as part of a project announced" Is there a significance to this project? Does it have a name?
  • "includes a visitors' center as well as a garden with" as well as -> and
  • The history section should include information about the Open House mentioned in the infobox. If there is information about the completion of construction, a grand opening, or other information of that sort, it should also be included in the history. Anything that can be added to the history of the building from 1962 to 2017 should be added.
  • "The temple today" Should be renamed to avoid MOS:CURRENCY. Perhaps this section should be merged with "Design" so that the architecture and the layout of the interior and exterior are in one section.
  • "Adjacent to the temple is the visitors' center (opened 1992)" Information about this opening should be in the "History" section
  • "Visitors can also learn about the temple, have questions answered, and learn more about the LDS Church." I don't think this sentence is needed and seems promotional of the site.
  • The "Christius" statue is creating an MOS:SANDWICH of the images and should be remedied.
  • "The temple today" uses lots of one-paragraph sections which should be merged together per MOS:OVERSECTION. Perhaps this will be remedied when the information is merged with design.
  • "The cultural hall was used years ago" Be exact with these dates.
  • "Even so, the fault zone is regarded as dangerous," Delete "Even so"
  • "Many members of the local community frequently visit the FHC." Delete, this is promotional language and not necessary.
  • In the "Design" section, there is lots of commentary about the design, but not a lot of description. When this is merged, try to reduce the amount of commentary. You might also want to create a new "Reception" section for commentary about the building.
  • "The church said that the Oakland temple (like other temples) was built using the "finest craftsmanship and materials available."" This is promotional and should be removed.
  • "Presidents" section should be expanded to include all presidents and information about the history of the position, or it should be removed
  • "It is currently directed by John Pew." per MOS:CURRENT, this should be changed to something like "In XXXX, John Pew became the director of the choir."
  • The "Organisations" section should be expanded with information, or merged with another section.
  • The images in the "Gallery" section should be interspersed within the article, instead of at the end, per WP:GALLERY.
  • I suggest archiving the websites used in the references using IABot
  • Recommend having access dates for all references with a website.

When the above are addressed, I will continue with a more detailed source review. Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recommendations have been taken into account and the Oakland California Temple page has been updated. Please take another look at the page for its subsequent GA review. Thank you! Yoscotty (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoscotty: Some additional comments below:

  • The lede is still far too short. The lede should cover all major aspects of the article: if the article has a heading for a section, there should be information from that heading in the lede. Also, more information about the history can be in the lede.
  • Lots of the prose in the History section feels promotional and can be removed. The "Open House" paragraph can be reduced to "In October 1964, the temple was opened for visitors to tour, and it was officially opened on November 17, 1964." Prose like "This provided an opportunity for individuals from various backgrounds to explore the temple's architecture and gain insight into the associated practices and beliefs" is too promotional.
  • Details about what was said in the dedicatory prayer should be removed, and just mentioned that it opened with the prayer.
  • "On February 23, 2017, the church announced that beginning February 2018, the temple would close for renovations that would be completed in 2019." Take out information about the announcement, and start with when the temple was closed for renovations.
  • Take a look at the rest of the article with particular detail to remove promotional language. Take a look at some other architecture articles (particularly featured articles) to determine what needs to be included and what language is too much focused on trying to get others to visit the site.
  • The images are scattered in random places, and some might need to be removed. Images should be placed next to the sections that talk about them. The images of the Map of the Temple and Temples of California should definitely be moved.

I'll let you take a look at this. Ping me when ready. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been reworked according to your instructions. Please, take a look at the page let me know if I did not catch anything that needs to be fixed. Thank you again! Yoscotty (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below:

  • "The temple's history dates back to 1847 when church president Brigham Young said that "in the process of time, the shores of the Pacific may yet be overlooked from the Temple of the Lord."" -> "A temple on the Pacific coast of the United States was first proposed by church president Brigham Young in 1847." The quote is not necessary here.
  • Suggest merging the second and third paragraphs of the history section.
  • "According to the church, almost 400,000 visitors attended the open house." I don't think this sentence is important and can be removed.
  • "A visitors' center was then constructed adjacent to the temple in 1992." Suggest putting this in the subsequent paragraph.
  • "Besides the three resident organizations and the temple pageant, many Brigham Young University performing arts groups have performed in the auditorium." I don't think this sentence is needed and can be removed. If it is to be kept, it needs a citation.
  • "There is also a Temple Hill Public Affairs Council which seeks to use the resources on the location to raise awareness of the church and its mission." I would rename the "Presidents" section to "Administration" or something similar, then move this sentence to that section. I would also expand upon this sentence to describe this council's connection to the temple (governance, awareness, etc.)
  • "Set on 18.1 acres" Suggest using the convert template to also have this displayed in metric.
  • "The FSC offers volunteer assistance to individuals interested in tracing their family history. On average, four out of five visitors to the FSC are not members of the church." This is off-topic and possibly moved to the FSC article.
  • The last paragraph of the "Visitors' centre" concerning the geneology information should be removed as off topic.
  • I think the whole Christmas section can be removed: it seems to be sourced to primary or COI sources, which do not demonstrate their notability. If this is important enough to include on Wikipedia, someone independent of the temple should have written about it.
  • " reaches 170 feet." Use the convert template to show metric measurements, too.

Those are my thoughts. This is looking a lot better. Z1720 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notes! I put more citations in the Christmas section–let me know if that is better for notability. The quote from Brigham Young has been removed from the lead section. Information about statistics for four out of five visitors to the FSC is a specific statistic for the Temple Hill FSC location. Let me know if there is anything else I should change. Thank you very much for your help! Yoscotty (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

All quotes in the lede either need a citation or should be reworded so the quotes are removed.

Source review:

  • Sources checked and verified: 1, 45, 47, 49, 58, 61
  • "The renovation included putting the front doors back in use, updating upholstery, installing new carpeting, updating the electrical system, new paneling, and restoring an outdoor reflecting pool." This sentence is too similar to the source and should be reworded.
  • "Designed by architect Harold W. Burton in 1962, the temple features a combination of Art Deco, Asian, and mid-century elements" This is too similar to the source wording and should be reworded.
  • "Artwork includes paintings, murals, and relief artworks. The lobby has a relief artwork representing Adam and Eve and another with Christ in the garden at Gethsemane." Also too similar.
  • "Fox News has referred to the temple as a "beacon on the hill" because the temple is visible to much of the Bay Area." The source says that Fox News is reporting this name, not that Fox News calls it this. This will need to be reworded.
  • " It has also been referred to as a "beacon."" I think this can be removed.

Image review:

  • Licences are good
  • Change px to upright per MOS:UPRIGHT
  • Suggest using alt text per MOS:ALT
  • I moved images to be in their sections

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your notes! The page has been updated according to your specifications. Please, let me know what else I can change! Yoscotty (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments:

  • "announced by church president David O. McKay in 1961 and dedicated in 1964" Delete this, as this information is already in the second paragraph.
  • Merge the third and fourth paragraphs of the lede.
  • The last paragraph of the "Interior" section falls into the "X says Y" sentence pattern. Read WP:RECEPTION for tips on how to varying the sentence in this section. The paragraph should also deemphasise quotes and instead summarise the information.
  • "others include the Easter Pageant in Mesa, Arizona, and the Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti, Utah." This is off topic and should be removed.
Thank you very much for your notes. I've worked through the edits as you've highlighted them. Please, take a look and let me know if anything else needs to be adjusted.Yoscotty (talk) 9:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, and I can determine that it meets the Good Article criteria. Great work! Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hilst talk 10:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The Oakland California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Oakland California Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Improved to Good Article status by Itsetsyoufree32 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Moondragon21:. I am confused... have you reviewed the article? I am looking for all of the checks that a reviewer needs to do per WP:DYKRR. See checklist Template:DYK checklist Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Yes I have, I don't see any problems with the article or the fact. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21: This article needs a full review. There are 5 ALTs and 12654 characters. The editor who nominated this only has 175 edits and this is their first DYK. Please use our checklist or list here what you have checked against our criteria. Bruxton (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall:

Hey all, thanks for taking a look at my submission. I placed the DYK hooks in order of which ones I thought would work best, so if you like the first one best, let's do that one first. Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I am new at this, is there anything else that we need to do (or that I need to do) to eventually get it put on the queue? And since the queue is backlogged, is there an estimate of when it could be put on the Did You Know Fact's section? Itsetsyoufree32 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakland_California_Temple&oldid=1218898218"