Talk:Christ the King Chapel (Christendom College)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! My name is, and I'll be reviewing this article! A little about me: I'm an editor with experience primarily in fields related to Catholic and Anglican Christianity with some background in Coloradan and Virginian historic subjects. My first successful GA was Evans Memorial Chapel, a chapel on the University of Denver's campus and a subject fairly similar to that of this article. Happily, I am a Catholic resident of northern Virginia who has a peculiar work schedule that leaves all of next week free, so on the off chance that I have to actually swing by Christendom in order to look into something, I can and will do that. Please feel more than welcome to correct me if I make any mistakes, as I am still in the single-digits when it comes to GAN nominations and reviews. Pings here and messages to my talk page are more than welcome. Happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review! APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your responses and latest tweaks all look good, ! I'll be off-Wiki tonight into early tomorrow but can edit pretty extensively tomorrow afternoon. More comments will follow on Monday if the need arises. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 04:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Initial read-through
I like starting my reviews with a quick read-through of the whole article, checking for the fundamentals of what an article should look like if it meets GACR. Before beginning my review, I some minor changes and added a short description. When I see the need for similar minor alterations that are not related to the GACR, I will generally do them myself. If you feel that my changes are wrong or substantially alter the article in any way, feel more than welcome to challenge them here or to revert them yourself! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Whoops, looks like I started off as a flop–forgot to put in the whole shortdesc. . ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Article name: ✅ Accurate with disambiguating parenthetical. Good to go.
 * Copyright/paraphrasing: One early minor concern. There is overlap with the National Catholic Register article, but these are largely quotations. I suggest some paraphrasing of these quotes, but I won't hold it against this nom if you decide not to. The overlap with the Northern Virginian Daily is essentially unavoidable, so no concern.
 * Stability: ✅ Immediate pass, extremely stable. Edit history does reveal that this was once a sandbox about something else entirely–I always love that kind of thing.
 * Coverage: ✅ Not immediately passing the article on coverage yet. This will require me to review in greater depth. Generally, it looks good, but the pause in additions in April 2023 makes me wonder if there's any coverage missing. I'll check.
 * Maintenance: ✅ No maintenance banners. Verifiability and referencing will be reviewed later.
 * Illustration: All images are free of copyright restrictions and substantially add to the character of the text. Excellent job on the photos, APK! I would say that adding File:Christendom College 12.jpg, an image of the earlier chapel currently planned for conversion into a different sort of space, is worth considering.

Alright, time to go through each section individually while checking against the GA criteria. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I added the photo and paraphrased some quotes. I'll see if I can find additional sources. APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 02:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see this one. APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 02:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing
As mentioned above, there is probably sustained coverage that may be missing, but this review will examine the currently present references for reliability, verifiability, and citation placement. As I have a really nasty cold, this may be the only bit I get through today. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Christ the King Chapel Dedication Mass & 45th Anniversary Gala Celebration: I lack access to this source. If anyone has access to this source and is willing to submit images of pages 14, 20–21, 30, and 76, please let me know. If not, I am willing to AGF on it verifying content, but would like to know if there is any additional publishing information available.
 * LAJ is something of a bloggish source. They do publish experts in architecture, literature, and liturgy, but they also publish amateurs and lack editorial functions common in other publications. J.P. Sonnen is not an "expert" in the traditional sense. As such, I am somewhat worried about the information that is exclusively verified to his article. I will look into this further.

Some vitamins and sleep will hopefully do the trick, but I'm really sorry that I'll probably end up extend this review into early next week. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The first ref you mentioned is the book handed out at the ceremony. There's not an online version as far as I'm aware. The second ref has a lot of good information and I'm not sure if there's another source that would provide the same info. I'm sorry you have a cold! Almost everyone is my office is either currently sick or just getting over the sickness. I had a sinus infection and bronchitis in December, now I'm dealing with the flu. Ugh... APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Back to it–your sympathy is appreciated. I'm going to AGF on the printed inauguration book as that sort of thing is generally fine for a GA. I'm also going to accept with hesitancy the LAJ source. Much of its content is bolstering but not redundant to other sources and what is unique seems relatively acceptable. LAJs article hasn't been challenged online as far as I can tell, so I don't have any real concerns. Again, acceptable for a GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Review: ✅ A reliable source independent of the subject but unlikely to be critical due to sectarian identity. Source cited four times, each time verifying the content immediately preceding the citation. Good to go. Appreciate that it is used in a way that remains focused on the chapel despite the somewhat different focus of the source itself.
 * The National Catholic Register: ✅ A reliable source independent of the subject. Register has been been more critical at times despite sectarian identity, so I think it builds towards the neutrality standards. Cited eleven times. I would alter Gothic Revival was chosen as the architectural design to something akin to Gothic-styled architecture was chosen as the architectural design as the term Gothic Revival does not appear in the source. Otherwise, good-to-go.
 * Hoar Construction: ✅ This is the firm that built the chapel, so not independent but reliable to reference basic objective statements. It is used appropriately and provides crucial details form a source that would, hopefully, be best able to accurately state them. I would delete approximately before 750 people, as the source says "double the seating capacity of the current chapel to 750 seats". This is not a crucial element and approximately is correct for all intents and purposes, too.
 * McFadden, The Arlington Catholic Herald: ✅ Reliable and independent but sectarian source. Used once, but I think the detail that construction was initially scheduled for completion in spring 2022 is a worthy addition to the article.

Alright, that's enough for now. Will be back, perhaps tonight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I made the two suggested edits. APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 04:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Swell! I really appreciate your hard work and welcoming attitude through the process thus far! I neglected to mention it in my comments here, but I a fact correction yesterday. This does not count against the GAN as the source itself screwed up the name on first reference. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Bridges, The Northern Virginia Daily, Jan 31: This source is reliable, independent, and non-sectarian. Enables the article to clear the hurdle for GA neutrality. Only one hiccup I see right now: in the article, it says the building will be available to rent for weddings; the source says "the college plans to make the chapel available to the public for events such as weddings". I would adjust the phrasing given that rent is never used and that consecrated Catholic worship spaces are not technically supposed to be rented for sacramental weddings. However, it certainly does feel like renting, given what I'm supposed to shell out to use a chapel later this year...

Pending my final concern listed directly above, I'm considering the article a pass on Criteria 2. If you're considering going for FA down the line, I recommend at least one more non-Catholic source that was written by someone other than Bridges. The next steps will be quicker and will wrap up the review, which I am very much leaning "pass" on right now. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Writing
Most of my critiques will suggest optional changes. I will specifically note if an issue requires resolution before this article can pass GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * was chosen as the architectural design because in Planning section. Consider rephrasing to something like was chosen for the new chapel because or altering to entire second half of the sentence to read something like was chosen to "epitomize the name Christendom" and recall the Middle Ages based off the quote in the cited source. I would consider improving this sentence moderately important. I apologize that I already asked you to monkey with it only to point it out again.
 * This may be more of a coverage concern, but please add something that explicitly ties the "A Call to Greatness" fundraising campaign to the chapel in the article body. This should be done before the GAN is completed.
 * After phrases at the beginning of sentences like In January 2020, I believe it is grammatical to add a comma following the date. If this is not relevant to Wikipedia's MOS, ignore this comment. This will not prevent me from passing the article for GA. I have added commas a couple times, but you may remove them if you believe they are unnecessary.
 * The inclusion of Benedict's full missive seems a bit excessive but does not seem to violate any copyright policy considering its brevity and thorough attribution. I would ask you consider converting it into prose but will not stop the GA over this.
 * Per MOS:SAINTS, please remove Saint from before Thomas Aquinas but not from before Peter or Paul. This is not a change required for GA.
 * Communion took place before the final blessing and conclusion of the event. This sounds like the standard order of most Catholic Masses. Was there a specific final blessing that further consecrated the space? If not, please consider removing this sentence. As it is almost certainly factual, I see no reason it would interfere with this GA passing.
 * Consider renaming the section Dedication to Dedication and use to reflect the inclusion of the final paragraph of this section.
 * I don't believe the hyphen in 24,000 square-feet is necessary. Not a required change according to Criteria 1.
 * The Crucifix Shrine seems inadequately described, considering the detail from the source: "The Crucifix Side Shrine at Christ the King Chapel in Front Royal will later feature stained-glass windows depicting Our Lady of Sorrows, St. John the Beloved and the eclipse of the sun on Good Friday."
 * The angels represent the Eucharist. This is a minor error: the golden oculus represents the Eucharist (it looks vaguely like a Communion wafer). See source: "a golden circular oculus surrounded by angels symbolizes the Eucharist." As an error of fact, this does need to be fixed.

Ok, that's the writing out of the way. Let me know once you've worked through everything. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality
Appraising this as a pass. I see nothing in reliable sourcing that suggests there was any controversy regarding this structure and the content avoids becoming laudatory in WikiVoice. Again, the conversion of Benedict's letter into paraphrased prose might further the objectives of neutrality, but this is not a priority for my review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Illustration
All images are correctly used and do not have any prohibitive licensing terms. With the addition of the former chapel's image, this is a swift pass and one of the article's strengths. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Coverage
You previously raised this source as a possible addition to the article. I would ask that you consider adding some details on student involvement in certain work on the chapel that related to them on a personal level. When it is eventually used for graduation ceremonies, we can make the relevant adjustments in phrasing. With these things in mind, I still consider the article a pass on Criteria 3.~ Pbritti (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think all of the issues were addressed, many of them thanks to yours and 's edits. If you don't mind, I'd really prefer to keep the blockquote because it's from the Pope, which to me seems incredibly important. (and I would assume, to Catholic readers as well) APK hi :-)  ( talk ) 04:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @APK No problem, I'm glad to be of help man. If you're referring to the Benedict VXI letter, you could also consider quote boxes maybe as an alternate. Either way, I believe this article is close to GA so congrats. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)