Talk:Australian Church

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:Australian Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 08:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OmegaAOL (talk · contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Hello! I'm your Good Article reviewer, and I will be passing your article today. This will result in a promotion to Good Article status.

1A: Reasonably well-written, yes. There are a few exceptions, like when a paragraph is started with But: But following the publication of an anonymous 1877, but I have fixed those myself.

1B: Lead and layout follows MoS, word choice is OK, neither fiction now contains a list, so pass.

2A: Article was lacking in wikilinks, but I added these in a copyedit, so now up-to-standard. For instance, none of the words in the sentence theologically liberal and advocated for pacifism, women's rights, and social reform were links.

2B, C, D: Sources (book-only) do indeed seem reliable from a brief cursory spot-check. I can also see that all statements or claims made are cited.

3: The article does seem to be suitably broad; it does provide some additional background on Strong, but one can argue that that is crucial to the content of the article itself, and not out of its scope. For example, the earliest background of Strong is as follows: Charles Strong, the founder of the Australian Church, was born in Scotland in 1844. He studied divinity at the University of Glasgow, where he became attracted to liberal theological currents. He was particularly influenced by the theologian John Caird, a leading figure in the philosophical movement known as British idealism. Strong was ordained in the Church of Scotland in 1868... there does not seem to be any information that is not directly relevant to either his liberal influences (that caused him to leave the Presbyterians and found his own church) or his religious/spiritual journey and journey with Christianity as a whole, but especially Presbyterianism.

4: It does not make any contentious statements in Wikivoice, and presents the widely differing viewpoints of people involved in the Australian Church's foundation, congregation and dissolution (everyone from Strong himself to the very traditional Presbyterian conservatives in the Background section) as their own statements, not as fact or social consensus. This point does become important with articles like these, where you can clearly see that there was quite a bot of historic political tension (at the time) between the involved parties. I will admit that the article does claim several times, in Wikivoice, that the Church rejected dogma, tradition, etc. but that is corroborated by enough reputable and reliable sources to make it acceptable to use Wikivoice in that fashion.

5: I can't find any evidence of edit warring.

6: All images are in the Public Domain (as is expected of something this old), and are suitably captioned and positioned.

• The nominator has done a good job keeping this article unbiased, un-reactionary, neutral, and in scope, which is particularly hard for an article of this nature. Good job.

Anyways, it's a G.A. now, so congratulations.

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

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Australian Church in 1887

• ... that after facing heresy charges, Charles Strong founded the Australian Church (pictured) and attracted many elite congregants—including a future prime minister?

• Source: Maddox, Marion (2021a). "Introduction: Anthem for a new nation". In Maddox, Marion (ed.). Charles Strong's Australian Church and Christian Social Activism, 1885–1917. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing. doi:10.2307/jj.1176883. ISBN 978-0-522-87789-2. OCLC 1450106980. The Australian Church was then sixteen months old, having been founded on 11 November 1885 after Strong was obliged to leave his post as minister of Scots' Presbyterian Church under threat of a heresy trial. Maddox, Marion (2021b). "Middle-class radicalism in 'this fine new country': The Australian Church network's social activism". In Maddox, Marion (ed.). Charles Strong's Australian Church and Christian Social Activism, 1885–1917. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing. doi:10.2307/jj.1176883. ISBN 978-0-522-87789-2. OCLC 1450106980. Many members of this network occupied comfortable positions within Melbourne's emerging intellectual, political and business elite. While poverty often featured in Strong's sermons, it would have been far removed from the experience of the members of parliament, judges, businessmen, journalists, writers and editors, professors, surgeons and pastoralists, and their prosperous families, who populate the church's records. Brett, Judith (2021). "Alfred Deakin and Charles Strong". In Maddox, Marion (ed.). Charles Strong's Australian Church and Christian Social Activism, 1885–1917. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing. doi:10.2307/jj.1176883. ISBN 978-0-522-87789-2. OCLC 1450106980. In 1901 he became the new Commonwealth's first attorney-general, and he was three times Australia's prime minister in its unstable first decade before the consolidation of the two-party system in 1909–10...By 1895 he was attending Strong's church fairly regularly, often with his eldest daughter, Ivy, sometimes with other family members, sometimes alone. He did not formally join the church until 1896...

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Deliverance (collection)

Improved to Good Article status by MCE89 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

MCE89 (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2025 (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 eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• 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: @MCE89: while "many elite congregants" is supported by the source, it is not explicitly stated in the article. The article does state "Other notable members of the church included the feminist and suffragist Vida Goldstein,[13] the politician and judge H. B. Higgins,[13] the journalist Alice Henry,[13] the entrepreneur Alfred Felton,[74] the pacifist Eleanor May Moore,[75] the politician Samuel Mauger,[76] the journalist and activist Henry Hyde Champion,[77] and the businessman Herbert Brookes.[78]"; however, it could be argued about whether the persons named constitutes "many".
I would suggest editing that sentence to make the many and elite bits explicit, something along the lines of "The church attracted many of Melbourne's intellectual, political and business elite, included feminist and suffragist Vida Goldstein,[13] politician and judge H. B. Higgins,[13] journalist Alice Henry,[13] entrepreneur Alfred Felton,[74] pacifist Eleanor May Moore,[75] politician Samuel Mauger,[76] journalist and activist Henry Hyde Champion,[77] and businessman Herbert Brookes.[78]". However, you choose to word it, give me a ping when you're done and I'll approve the nomination. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @TarnishedPath! Fair point — I was basing it on the earlier paragraph that says The Australian Church's membership was dominated by educated, middle-class professionals, many of whom were influential members of Australian society, but agree that it makes sense to make the "elites" claim more explicit. Added in that later spot per your suggestion. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Fate of Flinders Street building?

Is the original Flinders Street building still standing? It's given considerable coverage in this article (including images of and inside it) until the church sold it in 1922, but it's not mentioned again after that. I don't have access to any of the cited references. Thanks. ~2025-31220-95 (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @~2025-31220-95, this is a great point and should definitely be covered in the article. The answer is that it was turned into a car salesroom and then torn down in the 1980s to build a new service station — I'll add that to the article as soon as I have my sources on hand and can track down the page number. MCE89 (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)