Talk:Riverside Church

[Untitled]

The transept towers at Laon: do they look like the real design source for Riverside church's massive single tower? --Wetman 28 June 2005 09:45 (UTC) {{infobox}}

Major Error

The photograph accompanying the article is of a building at nearby Union Theological Seminary and not of Riverside Church. The two institutions are across the street from one another so I suppose a visitor could make this type of mistake, but the Church's tower is many times larger than the one in the photo and is of a significantly different style. Two photos of the actual tower may be found at http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/content.asp?id=208, though they are too small to be used for the article. There are other images at http://www.nyc-architecture.com/HAR/HAR009.htm, but most are rather old and predate a large addition on the church's southern end. Hopefully another user will find a photo which is both large enough and recent enough to use. (anon. user)

Good call! --Wetman 02:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• "...a center for the promotion of leftist and progressive causes..." I always wonder what the writer of such a phrase meant by "leftist" in addition to "progressive"— if anything much at all. Perhaps just a general sneer: not worthy of the better Wikipedia. Some closer analysis of Riverside Church's social programs over the years, touched on in the present article, would provide the reader more meat. --Wetman 12:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is situated in Morningside Heights, Manhattan. It just is. Period. Please don't "correct" the neighborhood to fit your imagination. --Wetman 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Speakers

How about a famous speakers section? Dr Martin Luther King Jr. and Arundhati Roy are some notable figures whom have been here. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer definitely visited Riverside, but he didn't like it. I can't find any documentation that he ever spoke there. I'm not sure that's correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnmain (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree: there is no evidence Bonhoeffer ever spoke here, though it is clear he nearly despised the place. He quotes without disapproval someone who called Fosdick the Antichrist (American Diary, June 20, 1939. DBWE 15:227). On June 18 he had written, "Worship at Riverside Church. Simply unbearable....Perhaps the Anglo-Saxons really are more religious than we, but they may not be more Christian, if they tolerate such sermons" (DBWE 15:224). -- Michael Hayes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthayes (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Construction Dates

The Architecture section says both that "the church was begun in 1927" and that the carillon atop the tower "was installed from 1925 with additional bells later." At least one of these dates must be incorrect, but I don't know which. Hopefully someone who does will make the appropriate correction[s]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.201.12 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

WRVR

How can this article not have a single mention of WRVR? 121a0012 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Riverside Church. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081229164907/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/earl/music_organist.html to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/earl/music_organist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 15:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Riverside Church/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, this looks like an interesting, well-written article and I look forward to reviewing it. My MO is to read the article, list any issues or questions in sections by article sections, and then add a table of GA criteria and go through those items. I am detail-oriented, as a heads up, and if you disagree with anything I say, please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed completed sections to make tracking easier, can remove collapse templates later if desired

Intro and infobox Infobox: Would you please link to Allen & Collens for architect (if possible based on the way you have them listed in the infobox) Done. Infobox: I generally see "Neo Gothic" with a dash "Neo-Gothic" and it would be great to link it to Neo-Gothic or directly to Gothic Revival architecture. I think it is already dashed and linked. epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Infobox: A link would be great for carillon, too. Done. Intro: General comment - it is very well written and inspires interest in learning more. Thanks, this is much appreciated. epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Intro: Please link to narthex and perhaps nave. Done. Intro, 3rd paragraph: a vs. an - should the words "original vision of a "interdenominational," be "original vision of an "interdenominational,–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) @CaroleHenson: Done. Thanks for the comments. epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Great! Re: "Neo-Gothic" see the first 1/2 of the infobox under architecture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) I am going to keep reading the article and come back to the comments and all your "done"s.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) History Congregation 2nd paragraph - I am not sure what you mean by moving in a more modernist direction. Is it the philosophical modernism / Age of enlightenment? If so, please add a link. If you mean something else, could you add a short phrase?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Progressive ideology 1st paragraph: In the sentence "Rockefeller then told the Park Avenue Baptist Church's leaders about the plan and then hired an agent to look at the planned church site.[16]" the second then seems redundant. Instead of "and then", perhaps something like ", after which he". Not a big deal, just throwing out a suggestion. Done. 2nd paragraph: "Initially," does not seem to be needed. Done. Just out of curiosity, why are there sometimes several citations for one sentence, like "At the end of May 1925, Fosdick finally agreed to become minister of the Park Avenue Baptist Church.[18][20][22][23]" - for something that should not be contested?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Not sure. I like to add citations if the source supports the fact, even in part, so that might be part of the reason why. However, I can combine the duplicate citations. epicgenius (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Site selection No comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Planning 2nd paragraph, last line: Re: "cloister", if you add a link to cloister, that would be great. I don't see the need for quotes around the word. Done. Comment - very cool fact about the architects getting inspiration for the design from the Chartres Cathedral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Construction 2nd paragraph: "Nonetheless," seems counter-intuitive. If Rockefeller said he was going to wait until the insurance claims were settled to continue construction, I would expect a delay. Perhaps "Nonetheless" is not needed. Removed. 3rd paragraph: "The first portion of the new church building. the assembly hall..." should have a comma, right? Yes, done. 3rd paragraph: Is the point of "thousands more were unable to enter" that "thousands more wished to enter? Yes, I fixed that. epicgenius (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) General comment: Wow, very interesting information - particularly about the neighborhood renovation projects! General comment: very cool about the Olmsted Brothers working on Sakura Park! And, I am reminded of chanting in the cloisters of upper Manhattan. i.e., it is bringing back great memories.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Yep, the Cloisters is a fantastic small museum, and it's included with admission to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It's worth spending a few hours there, but it's pretty far from midtown. epicgenius (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1930s through mid-1960s 1st paragraph - Does "with corresponding increases in enrollment at the church's Sunday school.[68]" go with the increased member count? Vs. the rate at which rooms are occupied? Yes, I believe so. epicgenius (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Perhaps a link to Rockefeller in the caption for the image. I don't know what the style guidelines are, I just make it a habit to link where possible in captions - so if someone's eyes are caught by the image, they don't have to search for a link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Done. Late 1960s through 1990s Quotes around words / names of things. I don't see a need to put quotes around "reparations". I wouldn't have put quotes around the fund and the study, but that makes more sense to me, since they are unique names with specific meanings to the church. Removed. Great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) I was wondering if the six councils from the previous section were able to make progress... or if the dissention that Campbell could still be due to a lack of organizational process and harmony. They made progress, but if I recall correctly, it wasn't sufficient. I will have to download the book again. epicgenius (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) If it's possible to close that loop, it would be nice. It won't affect passing the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Done. What happened to Evelyn Newman, if you know? Was she considered for the senior position in 1977?... Or, is it just the point that a woman was hired as a pastor? The second point is correct. It was just the fact that the church had never hired a woman pastor. epicgenius (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) What does "with Sunday morning service being particularly emphasized." mean? Over what? Not sure. For now I have hidden it. epicgenius (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Ok. I consider that  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Is "Body Lawson, Ben Paul Associated Architects and Planners" all one company name? Yes. Great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Amazingly lovely images, by the way... and you are a good storyteller, meant in the best possible sense for a non-fiction article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 21st century 1st paragraph - he-->the typo in "concerned an allegation that he church's finances" Done. Great.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1st paragraph - in "though the congregation was now majority black and Hispanic." It seems like "primarily" fits better than "majority". What do you think? Done. Great.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 2nd paragraph - Is "was" helpful / needed in "Another nationwide, year-long search was commenced, and in August..." Removed. Great.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 2nd paragraph - In "In June 2009 he submitted", it seems as if a comma is needed after 2009 -- and in keeping with usage elsewhere in the article. Done. Great.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Consistent handling of quotes around phrases for fund and study, re: "right of first offer" i.e., however you chose to handle quotes marks there. Done, I think. epicgenius (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Great.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) I am a little confused about claims by Butler and other women of sexual harassment by Edward Lowe in "The former council member claimed that despite the Council previously launching an extensive investigation into Lowe's conduct, the Council did not conduct as thorough of an investigation into an employee's complaint against Butler before voting to break off contract negotiations.[127]" Was only one person's claim investigated? Was this ever successfully resolved? Let me check this tomorrow, since it's getting late where I live. epicgenius (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Okay, great. That would be nice. What especially threw me was "investigation into an employee's complaint". If that could be clarified, that would be great! All that may be needed (if true) is that it was an "investigation into the employees' complaints." I just went with "allegations" since the sources do not mention whether there was one or numerous complaints. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Were the two controversies at the top of this section resolved?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, I added details about these. epicgenius (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Great, looks good.  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Design 1st paragraph - Comma after "As of 2017"? Done. 1st paragraph - Earlier in the article it said that the proposed tower was 375-foot-tall, but here it says 392 feet. Is that because the 375 was just an early design and it was amended later? Or is a difference between sources? The first one is correct. I have fixed this. epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 2nd paragraph - Re: "Pelton and Collens said that Chartres would provide the "fundamental principles" for the design of Riverside Church, but that the churches would have a completely different outline." Why does it say "churches" does that mean to cover the chapel and the main church? Sorry, I meant Chartres and Riverside were different. epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 2nd paragraph - I don't understand "The rest of the exterior is faced with Indiana Limestone." What other stone or building material was used on the other part of the facade? That means Indiana limestone is the material used for the rest of the facade. Hopefully I clarified this. epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 3rd paragraph - for modernist, please link to Modernist architecture or directly to Modern architecture. Done. General comment - the 3rd paragraph is very interesting!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Architectural features stopping for tonight... and you are probably wanting a break from all the detailed comments. Just like eating an elephant, I will take the article a bit at a time. I'm tired, but it has been fun reading the article. I hope you consider taking it to Featured Article status next.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) If you want me to just handle any minor, clear things, like links, typos, etc. - let me know. Then you could just look at edits to ensure you agree. Whatever works best for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) CaroleHenson, it would be great if you went over the minor typos. I think it would be better to list the major issues here, and would save time and effort. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Ok, will do, Epicgenius.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Facade no comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Nave I am not understanding "The tiles above the chancel and the nave's northernmost two bays are brown, because a sealant was applied in that section in 1953 to increase the acoustical reach of the organ, and had turned yellow over time." - how does adding a sealant increase the "acoustical reach"? (It may just be that I don't understand how adding a sealant would improve acoustics.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Struck this out after reading the Organs section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Chancel, ambulatory, and apse No questions or comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Narthex No questions or comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Chapel Gethsemane Chapel or Christ Chapel In the Narthex section, it says "The mortuary chapel is known as the Gethsemane Chapel (known as the Christ Chapel prior to 1959).[151]" In the Chapel section, it says: "The chapel to the south of the narthex, known since 1959 as the Christ Chapel,[144][159]" Which is correct? –CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC) @CaroleHenson: These are two separate chapels. The mortuary chapel, which was once known as the Christ Chapel, and the main chapel, which was the second to receive the name Christ Chapel. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Epicgenius I added a note here. I am guessing I am not the only person who would be confused by that. How does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC) CaroleHenson, honestly I am not sure why that renaming was even approved in the first place. There must have been something going on back then. epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tower stories

• Comment: I changed "used by outside entities, and as a result, some office rooms contain carpeted floors with fluorescent lighting fixtures." to "Over the years, several spaces have been used by outside entities, who carpeted floors and installed fluorescent lighting fixtures in some office rooms.[1]" - If you feel it is better the first way, feel free to change it. (underlined to make it easier to figure out what words changed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose this is fine. And all the other changes are fine, too, unless I replied. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • If you think that it could be better, please change it or revert it. My hope is that you feel the article is a bit better with some minor tweaks. If you think it isn't a helpful change, I trust you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Tower and carillon

• Comment re: "Above the tenth floor, there are five tiers of window arrangement on each floor", I made "window arrangement" plural.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Carillon

• Comment: I added "of construction" to "final complement of 74 bronze bells, at the time the largest carillon of bells in the world" to clarify which time we are talking about. Feel free to edit if you think it needs to be corrected or edited.
• Comment: I removed "the" from whereupon the 58 treble bells were replaced... since there were 74 bells were installed by that point, and there's no discussion of what particular 58 bells were replaced.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Cloister passageway

No comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr. Wing and subsections

• I made one edit to combine a phrase and a statement in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the main MLK section. I have no other comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Stone Gym

No comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Basement

• Is the movie theater still in the basement?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This source indicates it is still there, but I wouldn't rely on it. I changed the tense because the sources already on the page say that there was, and still is, a movie theater. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a side comment, you did an extraordinarily good job describing all the architectural features. It's difficult to do, but I was literally walking through the church in my mind because of your descriptions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Organs

No comments or questions. (Probably don't need to say that, but it helps me keep track).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Art and sculpture

• I made a few minor changes here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Rest of the article sections

• I made the following minor edits and added links here. I don't have any further comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Generally, very well written. See comments above re: mostly minor items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Looks great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Very good sources in general. I have a question about Untapped which is the source for statistics, like tallest church in the country, etc. That is the only source I have a question about. See comments section below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is a lot of detail in the article, but it's broken up into small, logical sections, so it's easy to focus on one's area of interest.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments / questions:

• I am not familiar with Untapped New York (or other cities) used for citation [135]. There are aspects that makes me think that content is provided by contributors (members). I don't see that there is an editor function here, or on other pages. There are a number of WP articles that use Untapped as a source, though. Do you know if there is an editorial function?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective, the Untapped source is the only issue. If there is a better source for the statistical information, that would help a lot.

Please feel free to change the wording in the Tower stories section. And, I think that you said that you were okay with the rest of the edits I made. If that's so, we're almost done.

As I have been saying throughout, great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

CaroleHenson, thanks so much for the review. I have minimized the use of the Untapped Cities reference. I generally think it is reliable for minor facts, but always try to find the original source if possible. I don't think any person off the street can edit the website, but it's good to make sure. epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks so much for the changes you made with "untapped" sourcing. I am going to see if I can find other source for the largest church, etc. and then it seems we're done. If those statistics are true, they must be somewhere else with a reliable source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Epicgenius, Please see these edits where:

• I found some sources to replace Untapped for tallest church in the country,
• I could not find a source for 24th tallest church in the world. And the List of tallest churches in the world has it listed at the 30-something tallest church -- just as a gut check, since we cannot use WP as a source, but it definitely does not appear to be the 24th now. I couldn't find a reliable source for 24th tallest... or another ranking. So, I put a parenthetical (among the tallest buildings in the world) - since I don't have a source for that, but readers can go to that article. It seems fine to have it as a parenthetical since a specific ranking is not given.
• There are two new sources for the bells.
• I left "Untapped" as a source and added a NYC architectural site that is the only other source that I can find for 14th largest chancel organ (or 14th largest organ).

I am not totally happy about the organ sources and the parenthetical for the world's largest, but I think it's workable and I am ready to pass the article. Thanks so much for your patience with me through all the minor edits, links, and questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Riverside Church

• ... that Riverside Church (pictured)'s 74-bell carillon, the world's largest at the time of its construction, includes a 122-inch-diameter (3.1 m) bourdon, the world's largest tuned bell? Source: NY Times 2015
  • ALT1:... that Riverside Church (pictured) includes a movie theater, gymnasium, and observation deck, and formerly contained a bowling alley? Source: Nash, Eric (1999). Manhattan skyscrapers. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p. 69; White, Norval; Willensky, Elliot & Leadon, Fran (2010). AIA Guide to New York City (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 505.
  • ALT2:... that Riverside Church (pictured) was funded by John D. Rockefeller Jr., who unsuccessfully tried to downplay his role in the planning and construction process? Source: Dolkart, Andrew S. (1998). Morningside Heights: A History of its Architecture and Development. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 73.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Tiedtke

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC).

• GTG for the ALTs 1&2. New enuf GA, seems neutral, QPQ done. Pic ok. Not too sure about the 1st hook - the source only says "the church says..." and there are many larger individual bells - not sure how much difference "tuned" makes. Maybe I'm being too fussy. AGF on ALTs 1 & 2. ALT1 might be best. Johnbod (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Name is incorrect

Hello, I'm hoping to add more to this article soon, especially about the former public radio station, WRVR, but I wanted to point out that the official name of the church is "The Riverside Church in the City of New York". The "in the City of New York" is almost always dropped, but the "The" is pretty uniformly used in the church's publications, etc. Vint (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)