Template:Did you know nominations/Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana)

The following discussion 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 Orlady (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana) edit

(

)

... that "Miky", a bomb-sniffing police dog that only responds to commands in Hebrew, helped efforts to revitalize the Jewish community (temple pictured) in Helena, Montana?

Reviewed: Cream nut

Created/expanded by PumpkinSky (talk), Montanabw (talk). Nominated by PumpkinSky (talk) at 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

: I'd like to get the input of a more experienced DYK reviewer regarding the piping of the hook, but in all other respects, this nomination is good to go. And the hook is very nice. Article is new enough, long enough, neutral, well-sourced. Duplication detector found no close paraphrasing. Image is properly licensed. Hook is properly cited and an appropriate length. I don't have experience with hooks that pipe the DYK-qualifying article's name to show a different name, but I am aware they are allowed, and this one seems fine to me. Rephrasing the hook to include the name of the temple would lengthen it significantly and make it less "hooky". Is it all right as-is? Image looks OK, but in my opinion probably not good enough at DYK size to be worth including. SJ Morg (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed alt image:

To my eye, the first image is actually lighter than this alt, but the alt image is also too low-resolution. If either is used, it should be the first one, but I still don't feel either is good enough for DYK, due to their low technical quality. Even the first one is very low-resolution (or even blurry), probably taken with a cell phone that doesn't have a very high-quality lens. At DYK-thumbnail size, the problem is different: the fact that the trees and lighting make it too difficult to make out any detail. I realize it's quite possible the mature trees at this location keep the front of the temple shaded most of the time (and the building faces northwest), but a decent-quality camera would still be able to get a sharp, detailed photo in such conditions, unlike these two photos. However, these comments have no bearing on my review of the nomination and hook, which is still positive. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that, even if the editor is able to obtain and offer a good-quality photo, the choice of including or not including the image will still be made by whoever promotes the nomination. SJ Morg (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, yes, I took them both, and I took them with a cell camera, as it was all I had at the time and I don't anticipate having the opportunity to get over there use a better camera any time soon. (My "better" camera is a point and shoot, which people at commons have also criticized as not good enough, so I'm not particularly motivated) But that's not really an issue for a thumbnail image, even a high-resolution image is still only going to be 100px and a computer screen only has a resolution of about 75 dpi anyway. But whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the resolution isn't an issue for the thumbnail. My concern for the thumbnail size was that the image was too dark, but I've now uploaded a lighter version of the first photo (modified in iPhoto), because I do believe the article and hook are worthy of the lead position at DYK, and for that, the entry needs a photo. Also, the article is mainly about the temple, and including the photo might make the piping of the article title in the hook more acceptable, so I'm now willing to recommend including the (first) photo, the one I lightened a bit. I'm still hoping someone else gives some input on the hook piping, but if no one does within the next few days, I might just mark the nom as ready (and then see if anyone objects at that point). SJ Morg (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrific. I think hook piping is OK (at least, I've seen it before). We can let it sit and see what happens. Thanks for the edit, every computer is a bit different with the image on-screen. Montanabw^(talk) 16:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think piping is possible but would like to see the beautiful name:

ALT1: ... that "Miky", a bomb-sniffing police dog that only responds to commands in Hebrew, helped to revitalize the Jewish community in Helena, Montana, that built Temple Emanu-El (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't flow quite as well as the original (just one additional phrase can have that effect), but the ALT does have some clear advantages. I'm OK with either the original or the ALT, but with maybe a slight preference for the ALT. Let's see what the article's creator thinks. SJ Morg (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

- slight pref for ALT1.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also OK with ALT1, probably wise to have the article name in the hook. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to go, with ALT1 by consensus, and with a recommendation to include the first photo. SJ Morg (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)