![]() | Evans Memorial Chapel 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. Review: December 14, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Evans Memorial Chapel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 November 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
( )
- ... 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 |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe 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: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)
- 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)
@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 Tsdot 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)
- 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
- 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. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
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. |
| |
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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
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.