Jump to content

Talk:Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, D.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible sources

[edit]


  • "Labor of Love", Architectural Record, Stephen Kilment, 10/93



  • Awards
    • 2016 Built by Women DC Award
    • 1994 AIA/Concrete Masonry Award
    • 1993 AIA DC Merit Award in Architecture
    • 1993 Masonry Design, Masonry Institute
    • 1993 Excellence in Religious Architecture, Interfaith Forum on Religion, Art + Architecture



GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Metropolitan Community Church of Washington, D.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. Consider Since MCCDC's founding, several other denominations to read Since MCCDC's founding, several other Christian churches
    2. Use of LGBT people is relevant as it refers to the period circa 1970; the term is different today, but the history should remain so.

I changed it to "Christian denominations", but if you think "Christian churches" is still more appropriate, I can change that as well. To me it would read as churches as in stand alone congregations, not groups aka denominations (ex: United Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.), which is what I'm conveying. APK whisper in my ear 04:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Early years

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. History gives a well thought out account of congregation growth, ordination of pastors, and development of pastoral care.
    2. Inclusion of the UpStairs Lounge arson attack is appropriate; it is a reminder of hate attitude of the times, and perhaps, self-hate. ===Church growth===
  2. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. The search and settlement for a permanant place of worship is noted;
    2. The interfaith aid to the Jewish egalitarian community is an important inclusion,
    3. The changes in leadership with pastors leaving to open congregations in other cities is an indicator of growth nationally;

AIDS Epidemic

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. The role of the Church commumnity in holding AIDS forums is noted;
    2. The attempts to attract people of colour in 1983 is a worthy initiative;
    3. Hosting of funeral services for free and other forms of pastoral care is observed.

New Sanctuary

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. Overcrowding at the rowhouse is part of the needful community development
    2. growth of the gay religious community and change in mentality is an historical moment;
    3. attention to women, people of colour and the music delate terms of community growth and its needs ...

LGBT Rights

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. I am concerned that the first three paragraphs in LGBT rights don't directly address rights but rather, give history.
    2. The rights coverage commences in the 4th paragraph.
    3. What impact does the LGBT rights movement have on the MCCDC Congregation, its steadiness, its service to the community and its growth?
    4. You need to develop a narrative in this section about how we get to result of other denominations finally accepting LGBT people or move it to a new section.
    5. Check back with me if this is unclear.

The second paragraph discusses LGBT rights, but yeah I can see what you mean about the others. I'm trying to figure out to reword/reorganize the section. I might change the heading since it's more of a history section. APK whisper in my ear 07:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about renaming the section something like "Later history" because reading over the article LGBT rights is mentioned throughout the history section. APK whisper in my ear 08:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Building

[edit]

Architect

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. The introduction to Reatig is good, the United House of Prayer for All People situates her as an architect with some form of sacred building history;
    2. Criticism that she uses heaps of concrete and heaps of glass is fair, given this leads to the outcome;
    3. Not fastening the seats to the floor is a brilliant inclusion, given the space parking can demand;
    4. The end result with glass and light is theologically sound given the order of the Credo.

 

End Matter

[edit]

See Also

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. Allows people to find other ecclesial communities catering to LBGT faith needs, and faith-based resources.

References

[edit]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    1. References are appropriate and restrain the history of this church, its community and development;
[edit]
    1. All examined.

Is it is Broad in its coverage?

[edit]
    1. Yes, it is a good narrative of the pastoral care and the expanding response to the LGBT community of DC
    2. It is broad and an inclusive article that keeps to the topic.

More End Matter Stuff:

[edit]
  1. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
    1.   Absolutely
  1. Is this page stable?
    1. Page created on 30 July 2020 and has had 49 edits.
    2. 103 page views in the last 60 days.
    3. There are 35 links to this page and 76 links from this page.
    4. Top editors are APK who has done 100% of the editing for this page;
    5. There is no evidence of edit warring, page is considered stable.
  1. It is illustrated by images ?
    1. Yes, plenty of images, all appropriate and well placed.

Overall

[edit]
    1.  GA on hold   pending resolution of queries raised. -- Whiteguru (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Queries resolved satisfactorily
    3. ✓ Pass --Whiteguru (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 

 

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metropolitan_Community_Church_of_Washington,_D.C.&oldid=1206788559"