Talk:St Nicholas Church, Chiswick

St Nicholas Church, Chiswick 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: June 2, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Nicholas Church, Chiswick is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This article doesn't need much input from a reviewer. A few very minor points you may like to consider:

History

"The church was formally visited" – I have a vague idea what visitation means in this context, but most readers won't have even that, and a link or brief explanation of the term would be a kindness.

- Linked and glossed.

"Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein married Betty Carver in the church on 27 July 1927" – no he didn't: Major (acting Lt-Col) Bernard Law Montgomery did. We usually try to give people the labels that applied at the time of which we are writing. The "Fred Smith, later Lord Gruntfuttock" formula will do the trick.

- Done.
Architecture

"Hoodmould" – the OED hyphenates hood-mould

- Done.
Monuments

"the Italian government, as part of its campaign of glorification of the new Italian republic" – republic? Under King Victor Emmanuel II?

- State it is.
Refs

Not that it matters for GAN, where consistency of referencing format is not a requirement, but I wonder why there is a single book with bibliographical details in the References section when the others are in Sources. (And I don't believe the capitalisation you've given the title of Riall's book.)

- Fixed, Riall to Sources and Title Case.

That's my lot. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency. Over to you. Tim riley talk 13:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim! Done all those. Always a pleasure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure for me too. All fine now, so:

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Tim riley talk 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]