Talk:Unity Temple
These photos all appear to be taken some years ago - there are newer photos as the building has been restored. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:64B6:AC7C:BD83:4A8C (talk) 04
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unity Temple article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Unity Temple has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 2, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Unity Temple appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 March 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Discussion
- Unity Temple is not open to the public without paying for admission. The building is currently a museum.Wrightwriter (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a few years late for this comment to matter, but the building has never been a museum. It's always been in use by an active congregation. Highnumber (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unity Temple houses a church that meets on Sundays - and they also use the space at other points during the week; however, there are times during the weekdays that tours are given to the general public, and those are PAID tours where admission is charged, with the money going to the building's continued upkeep. The tours are given as a point of architectural interest, though - Unity Temple is not in any way a "museum." 104.153.231.177 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, it is not a museum. The part of the article that describes the restoration talks about the Foundation that now partly owns the building (along with the congregation) and the tours are managed and run by the Foundation, with fees helping to sustain upkeep of the building (which is still fundraising for the capital campaign for the restoration as well). 2603:8001:2A00:7428:64B6:AC7C:BD83:4A8C (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unity Temple houses a church that meets on Sundays - and they also use the space at other points during the week; however, there are times during the weekdays that tours are given to the general public, and those are PAID tours where admission is charged, with the money going to the building's continued upkeep. The tours are given as a point of architectural interest, though - Unity Temple is not in any way a "museum." 104.153.231.177 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a few years late for this comment to matter, but the building has never been a museum. It's always been in use by an active congregation. Highnumber (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Photos
These photos all appear to be taken some years ago - there are newer photos as the building has been restored. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:64B6:AC7C:BD83:4A8C (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Wishing someone who has access to those photos & can confirm permissions to use it would post some new ones here. The main one that shows with the info table is a very old dingy photo from before restoration. 2603:8001:2A00:7428:79F3:7E4E:95E5:E9D (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unity Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121026052904/http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/New_Tentative_List.htm to http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/New_Tentative_List.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 19:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- ... that Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple (pictured) was made of concrete to save money, reportedly making it one of the United States' first major reinforced concrete buildings? Source: Gapp, Paul (March 13, 1992). "Deity of U.S. Design". Sun Sentinel. p. 3E.
- ALT1: ... that after Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple (pictured) was completed, some people, disappointed with its design, likened it to a Mayan ball court? Source: Goodman, Walter (November 10, 1998). "Television Review; A Visionary's Dreams, Disguised as Buildings, Altered the Landscape". The New York Times.
- ALT2: ... that the contractor who built Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple (pictured) went bankrupt after Wright kept changing the plans? Source: Sokol, David M. (2008). The Noble Room: The Inspired Conception and Tumultuous Creation of Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple. Top Five Books. pp. 122–123; Schrenk, Lisa D. (2021). The Oak Park Studio of Frank Lloyd Wright. University of Chicago Press. p. 151
- ALT3: ... that in the mid-20th century, a church in Illinois (pictured) attracted international visitors but not local residents? Source: "Unity Universalist Church Opens for 78th Year". Oak Leaves. September 9, 1948. p. 30; "Unity Temple a masterpiece in concrete". Oak Leaves. June 25, 1969. p. 12.
- ALT4: ... that in the 2000s, a church in Illinois (pictured) was in such poor condition, condensation buildups caused rain inside? Source: Kamin, Blair (February 14, 1999). "Crumbling Icons Some of Frank Lloyd Wright's Greatest Buildings Are Falling Apart. But the Bigger Question is: What Can We Do to Save Them?". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.
- Reviewed: Tina Leung (stylist) (1 of 2 QPQs)
- Comment: I can suggest more hooks later.
Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC).
- The suggested wording seems best, although why not word it '...Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple...'. Thanks for your work on this. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. I've made this suggested change to ALT0 through ALT2.
Also putting this icon here so people don't skip over this review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. I've made this suggested change to ALT0 through ALT2.
Phantastic expansion of a landmark building, on its way to GA, on an unbelievable wealth of refs, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I have been told for so many names in hooks that people would not know them that I recommend to link FLW. I also recommend to bring his name sooner in the lead, for those who do known him. The image is licensed, an will hopefully be shown. I believe that - for formality - we still need (pictured) in hooks. In the original hook, I think you can drop "reportedly" because it's no claim to be the first, just "one of the first". I think ALT1 would profit from drastic trimming, such as
- ALT1a: ... that after Frank Lloyd Wright's Unity Temple (pictured) was completed in 1908, it was likened to a Mayan ball court?
- I'd add the year, because it doesn't look that "old" ;) - I'd link the game, because those who don't know FLW may not have heard of the games either. I am no friend of any hook not using the building's name, and am happier anyway with the first 2 ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Gerda. I've added the links as you suggested. I initially excluded the links because I didn't want them to distract from the main hook, but I suppose a promoter would have probably added the links anyway. As for the "pictured" comment, I don't know if the image would be used—if it isn't, then the comment would be removed anyway—but I've added "pictured" to each hook, in any case. ALT1a sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! - I added (pictured) to ALT1a also. (I should have written ALT1b, formally ;) - Even if the picture is not taken, it's a little service to add the clause, because it's easier for the promoter to remove it than to add it. Also, while in this case it's clear where it would belong, in other cases it might be ambiguous.) In this case, though, I hope that ALT1a will be chosen (I won't strike the others), and the image would give readers a chance to understand the likening at a glance, or not. They may still be curious how that happened. It seems less needed but still wanted for the original, but I believe that the kind of quirky hook might fit a genius better than first concrete ;) - I hope to see the pic again on a TFA some day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Gerda. I've added the links as you suggested. I initially excluded the links because I didn't want them to distract from the main hook, but I suppose a promoter would have probably added the links anyway. As for the "pictured" comment, I don't know if the image would be used—if it isn't, then the comment would be removed anyway—but I've added "pictured" to each hook, in any case. ALT1a sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Unity Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 03:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) 
Lead
Great summary of the body
Early history
No issues :)
Temple development
No issues :)
Selection of site and architect
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)
- Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
- It was the southwestern corner of Lake Street and Kenilworth Avenue - I've fixed. this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Original plans
No issues :)
Design changes
No issues :)
Early construction
No issues :)
Delays and completion
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)
Early and mid-20th century
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)
- Removed, yeah it was unnecessary detail. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
and a congregant, E. O. Gale: Gale has already been introduced IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Removed the repeated detail. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Oak Leaves reported...: The publication seems to be called "Forest Leaves", at least at this point. IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
1960s
No issues :)
1970s
No issues :)
1980s and 1990s
No issues :)
2000s
No issues :)
2010s to present
No issues :)
Building
No issues :)
Exterior
No issues :)
Facade
No issues :)
Roofs
No issues :)
Interior
No issues :)
Entrance pavilion
No issues :)
Layout
No issues :)
Decorations
No issues :)
Unity House
No issues :)
Mechanical features
No issues :)
Clergy
As of 2024, Roger Bertschausen is the senior minister: Can be updated IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is still true as of 2025. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Events and tours
No issues :)
Impact
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)
- 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)
Reception
No issues :)
Media
No issues :)
Landmark designations
No issues :)
Sources
Source numbers are based on this version.
Health/formatting (Criterion 2a)
[396] and [397] are down IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed 396 and removed 397. Epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Reliability (Criterion 2b) 
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)
[169a]: 
[7b]:
[51a]:
[75b]:
[75c]:
[325b]:
[13h]: though it links to page 102, not 101 IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
[386]:
Copyvio (Criterion 2d)
Earwig finds nothing, I thought your paraphrasing was generally very good on the spot check.
Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)
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)
Media
Tags (Criterion 6a)
All Flickr transfers, own works, or government employee images. I see no issues.
Captions (Criterion 6b)
Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)
Suggest archiving non-dead links to prevent link rot IAWW (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.