Talk:St Mary Redcliffe/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Overlinks
- William II Canynges
- stained glass
- chancel (twice)
- History
- I'd link Perpendicular.
- Architecture and fittings
- Something has gone awry with the opening sentence. Removing the unwanted "the" before England would be a start, but it would still read oddly. I suggest something like, "St Mary Redcliffe is one of the largest parish churches in England, and according to some sources it is the largest of all."
- "Lady Chapel" – capitalised here, but not in the earlier Architecture and fittings section. Most of the examples given in the OED capitalise Lady and about half of them also capitalise Chapel.
- The last sentence of the second paragraph has an outbreak of capitalisation that doesn't match the style of the rest of the article.
- The church bells
- "Liverpool Cathedral" at first mention but "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral" at second mention. Better the other way round perhaps.
- "Tenor" is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not. Not seems more sensible, as it isn't a name.
- "semi-tone bells" – I know nothing of bell-ringing, but in music "semitone" is not hyphenated.
- "diatonic" – could do with a blue link
- Linked to Diatonic scale.— Rod talk 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Organists, choirmasters and directors of music
- The opening sentence needs punctuating. A semicolon after "organists" would do.
- It does seem somewhat disproportionate to list the organists and choirmasters but not the vicars. That said, the GA criteria do not require an article to be comprehensive, and this strange imbalance is therefore not a bar to promotion.
Nothing of great moment there. I look forward to cutting the ribbon when you have addressed these few points. – Tim riley talk 13:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have attempted to address most of your comments above, but couldn't work out "last sentence of the second paragraph". Could you take another look?— Rod talk 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Good! All fine!
Overall summary[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
A most enjoyable article, and a pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)