Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22385919d2b15db

Jump to content

Talk:Unity Temple/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by It is a wonderful world in topic GA review

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.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 03:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sturmvogel started this but I accidentally hijacked their review. They indicated elsewhere that they are happy for me to continue as if I started it. @Epicgenius IAWW (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just finished reviewing – wow, what a fantastic article! This is the best GA I have reviewed in a long time, and I found very few issues relevant to the GA criteria. It's all the more impressive given the length and depth of sources you incorporated. I wish you could do more reviewing, given the backlog, but at the same time the articles you create are just so good I can see the argument that your time is much better spent creating them. I guess also you probably enjoy writing more. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. As for doing more reviewing, you hit the nail right on the head - I do enjoy writing a bit more, though I might review more articles. It's just that my reviews tend to be very detailed, which I need to work on. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explaining. I see no issues preventing this from reaching GA, so I am passing now. IAWW (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Great summary of the body

Early history

[edit]

No issues :)

Temple development

[edit]

No issues :)

Selection of site and architect

[edit]

At the time, two-thirds of the congregation lived south of Lake Street, but congregants favored a site near that street: The "but" here is WP:EDITORIAL because no such contrast is present in the source. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Two of these sites were located at Lake Street and Kenilworth Avenue: a private house on the southwestern corner...: The southwestern corner of Lake Street or Kenilworth Avenue? It's a bit unclear. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

It was the southwestern corner of Lake Street and Kenilworth Avenue - I've fixed. this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Original plans

[edit]

No issues :)

Design changes

[edit]

No issues :)

Early construction

[edit]

No issues :)

Delays and completion

[edit]

though it would take several years before the construction cost was fully repaid: The cited page does not say how long it took to fully repay the construction costs, it only says that they fundraised for several years after. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Early and mid-20th century

[edit]

established a weekly "social clinics class" at the temple in late 1910: Is there any information about what this was beyond the name? I think either explain what this was or cut as unnecessary detail. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Removed, yeah it was unnecessary detail. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

and a congregant, E. O. Gale: Gale has already been introduced IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Removed the repeated detail. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

merged his congregation: Is it possible to find a bit more information on what this congregation was? E.g. what denomination and where were they previously located? IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I cannot readily find that information. I was only able to find its name, but that led me to a dead end. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oak Leaves reported...: The publication seems to be called "Forest Leaves", at least at this point. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

1960s

[edit]

No issues :)

1970s

[edit]

No issues :)

1980s and 1990s

[edit]

No issues :)

2000s

[edit]

No issues :)

2010s to present

[edit]

No issues :)

Building

[edit]

No issues :)

Exterior

[edit]

No issues :)

Facade

[edit]

No issues :)

Roofs

[edit]

No issues :)

Interior

[edit]

No issues :)

Entrance pavilion

[edit]

No issues :)

Layout

[edit]

No issues :)

Decorations

[edit]

No issues :)

Unity House

[edit]

No issues :)

Mechanical features

[edit]

No issues :)

Clergy

[edit]

As of 2024, Roger Bertschausen is the senior minister: Can be updated IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is still true as of 2025. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Events and tours

[edit]

No issues :)

Impact

[edit]

it was reportedly the first major reinforced-concrete: "reportedly" is a bit weasely here, either attribute properly or cut that word IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Ingalls Building is technically the first major reinforced-concrete building in the U.S., so I've rephrased it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reception

[edit]

No issues :)

Media

[edit]

No issues :)

Landmark designations

[edit]

No issues :)

Sources Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Source numbers are based on this version.

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

[396] and [397] are down IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I fixed 396 and removed 397. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reliability (Criterion 2b) checkY

[edit]

This seems to have pretty much the perfect mix of sources. It is mostly based on academic books, and that is supplemented with news sources. All seems reliable.

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

[169a]: checkY

[7b]: checkY

[51a]: checkY

[75b]: checkY

[75c]: checkY

[325b]: checkY

[13h]: checkY though it links to page 102, not 101 IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The SFN covers a source that covers pages 100 to 102. Since the same source is used multiple times for different page ranges, I decided to link to just one of these pages. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

[386]: checkY

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) checkY

[edit]

Earwig finds nothing, I thought your paraphrasing was generally very good on the spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) checkY

[edit]

Extremely detailed, and I don't think any of it is unnecessary given the great depth of sources. I can't see anything major omitted.

Stable (Criterion 5) checkY

[edit]

Media checkY

[edit]

Tags (Criterion 6a) checkY

[edit]

All Flickr transfers, own works, or government employee images. I see no issues.

Captions (Criterion 6b) checkY

[edit]

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

[edit]

Suggest archiving non-dead links to prevent link rot IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can do that in a little bit. However, the archive bot is not working for me right now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I can't tell if you accidentally missed some modern monetary conversions or chose to omit them. I'm curious of your reasoning behind omitting some. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I accidentally missed some. I've added inflation conversions to the rest of the pre-1999 figures. Thanks for the review IAWW. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (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.