Talk:Evans Memorial Chapel

Did you know nomination

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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Evans Memorial Chapel before relocation

• ... that Denver's oldest building continuously used for Protestant worship, the Evans Memorial Chapel (pictured), is now also used by Catholics? Source: Templin, J. Alton (1977). "Metropolitan Denver, 1884-1912". In Templin, J. Alton; Breck, Allen D.; Rist, Martin (eds.). The Methodist, Evangelical, and United Brethren Churches in the Rockies, 1850-1976; Daily Mass @ Evan’s Chapel
  • ALT1: ... that the Evans Memorial Chapel (pictured), built with money from John Evans, was moved to the campus of a university he founded with money from his grandson (also John Evans)? Source: "Contracts Signed Tuesday for DU Gardens". Colorado Springs Gazette. Colorado Springs, CO. 26 November 1964; Templin
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Mosberg
  • Comment:

5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 03:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evans Memorial Chapel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I am busy with family obligations this weekend but will return to the review by Tuesday. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Take your time and best of luck with your family. I have similar occasion for my focus to be elsewhere this weekend as well. Tuesday is more than fine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have seen your note on MOS compliance. Consider me free tonight if you wish to ask for clarification on a point. I appreciate your willingness to take matters into your own hands and plan to fully defer to you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I incorporated your suggested edits here. I noticed you changed "church building" to "expansion", which I feel like is inaccurate as the Grace Church building was adjoined but not directly a part of the chapel. We could discuss that to ensure clarity. With the new ordering of the sections, isn't this out of step with other GA building articles that place architecture/design sections before history? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough - please reword to make sure it's clear. I didn't prefer "church building" because I thought it might be confusing for readers who also consider the Evans Chapel a "church building," so would welcome your thoughts on a third option. I'll take a look over everything else. As to the order, GAs are not bound to any strict setup - within the MOS, it's up to the nominator and reviewer. Reviewers at FAC may have different standards. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Willing to defer to you on the order of the article and the MOS stuff (thanks for the edits you made, by the way). Just wanted to cross our Is and dot our Ts dot our Is and cross our Ts on that front. I'll come up with a better word/phrase but I agree a third option is likely superior to "church building". When we're through with everything that could alter the article's appearance, I may ask for tips on reordering/restructuring the images so that they look less cluttered. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• This article meets GA standard - congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2022 (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.	As is my usual style, I am going to go through and make any small changes needed myself to save us both time. If you object to any, just let me know here and we can discuss. I would suggest moving the 'History' section above 'Design', and merging the 'Gallery' section into 'Design'. The reference to slow subscription collection is a little surprising after the previous paragraph - make it clearer that Evans was not asked to fund the entire cost of the church. Roughly what percentage did he pay? Do we know a specific amount? Explain what the "Colorado Conference" is on first reference. Issues addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, pass.
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.	We probably don't need three citations for Evans being the oldest continuously-used religious building in Denver, but in looking at which to keep, it would be good to keep the more contemporary one and not those from the '70s. Issue addressed, pass.
	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).	Pass, a number of the sources were not independent, but they were not used to cite anything controversial or disputed, so no issues. Otherwise high-quality and reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find any significant areas not covered here. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	What relevance does the Iliff marriage have to the chapel? I'm sure many people were married there over the years. Seems overdetailed. Cut to a single sentence, or entirely. To my taste I would reduce this further, but it's good enough for GA standard. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality found. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some recent tweaks, but nothing major, no unresolved issues on talk/edit warring. Pass.
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.	Images all look fine, double-checked the '50s ones by unknown university employees but they don't present an issue, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.