Talk:St John the Evangelist Church, Islington
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]
( )
Front of St John's Church, Islington
- ... that Augustus Pugin called St John the Evangelist Church, Islington a "deformity", which was refuted by Joseph Hansom?
- Source: Historic England. "Islington – St John the Evangelist". Taking Stock. Quote: "Pugin castigated the Romanesque Revival building as ‘the most original combination of modern deformity that has been executed for some time past’. In response, the design was defended by Joseph Hansom in The Builder."
- Joseph Hansom. 1 April 1843. "The Present State of Ecclesiastical Architecture in England". The Builder Volume 1, page 98. Quote: "This church, so far from exhibiting the adoption of true Catholic principles, which we have had so much pleasure in describing at Masbro’, is certainly the most original combination of modern deformity that has been erected for some time past for the sacred purpose of a Catholic church," and, "And now, we tell our readers that this new church of Islington, which Mr. Scoles has built, and which Mr. Pugin insists he ought not to have built, and which he has done no little damage to by his strictures, depriving it of the contribution of many whose purses yield more to dictation in such matters than to reason or to judgment; this church of Mr. Scoles is withal a fine and noble church."
- Denis Evinson, Catholic Churches of London, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, page 140. Quote: "Scoles's neo-Norman design was severely castigated by Pugin in The Dublin review, in which he called for a rebuilding of Islington's mediaeval Gothic church. Joseph Hansom, however, powerfully defended Scoles's church in the pages of The Builder, of which he was then editor, pointing out that Catholicism had other 'beautiful forms, styles and adaptations in store for us."
Cardofk (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC).
Hi Cardofk, nice work on this article. Review follows: article created 3 November and is of good length; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources (though I usually avoid British Listed Buildings as it is a mirror of the Historic England listing; I didn't pick up on any paraphrasing issues; hook fact is interesting enough for me, mentioned in the article and checks out to sources cited; image is freely licensed; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to go - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- One minor thing I had a quick look at the Archdiocese directory page cited and found ti listed the Sunday masses as "Sunday (Sat 6pm), 9.30am, 11am (Sung)" and not the four times you have? One other thing you might consider is adding some background to the "foundation" section on why Catholicism was practised in secret and the timing of the Catholic relief acts, the unknowing reader might otherwise be a little confused how we went from arresting priests to constructing a church - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, very good point, thanks for spotting it, I really should have linked to the Reformation at the beginning. Will do. Thanks again, Cardofk (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- One minor thing I had a quick look at the Archdiocese directory page cited and found ti listed the Sunday masses as "Sunday (Sat 6pm), 9.30am, 11am (Sung)" and not the four times you have? One other thing you might consider is adding some background to the "foundation" section on why Catholicism was practised in secret and the timing of the Catholic relief acts, the unknowing reader might otherwise be a little confused how we went from arresting priests to constructing a church - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)