- The following is an archived discussion of First Congregational Church, Salt Lake City's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC).
First Congregational Church, Salt Lake City
Created by Orlady (talk). Self nominated at 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC).
- I can not see the hook (specially the portion "non-Mormon") properly in the HighBeam article. But, I can see its mention here and here --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the error. Indeed, the Deseret News article accessed via HighBeam (footnote 1) says it was the first Protestant church; it doesn't say it was the first non-Mormon church. I've rearranged the footnote callouts and added a new second citation for the hook fact. The first source you cite in your comment was the second footnote supplied to support the hook fact sentence. Because it is the church's own website, I didn't want it to the only source for that fact. I've supplemented it with another reference citation, in place of the Highbeam item. Please see what you think of the current version.
- PS - The article doesn't use the second source you cited in your comment (Utah: A Guide to the State, by Federal Writers' Project) because of errors in its brief four-line entry about this church. It states that the church's second building was built in 1891 (all other sources say it was completed in 1892) and that it was built on the site where the first non-Mormon church services were held (no other source says that, and other sources identify a completely different location for McLeod's first services). Furthermore, this source didn't support the hook fact, either. Since this is a very short entry in a book that was essentially a travel guide, I think it's OK to ignore the discrepancy with other sources -- those other sources are more reliable. --Orlady (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- The second citation looks good. Good to go! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)