Jump to content

Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk contribs count) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll have proper read through later, just a few drive-by comments for now.

  • The lead looks a bit thin. The only info about the church (as opposed to its fittings) is that it's Palladian
  • benefice, portico, heraldic, pavilion, vestibule, aisle are all unlinked and unexplained. Check through for others, looks a bit under-linked in general to me
  • link wartime to WWII, not all readers will be Brits.
    •  Done
  • dissolved,[5] in 1525 — link to dissolution of the monasteries. Also why is the comma there?
  • He said that the church seemed designed for Cheapside — it's not clear to me if this is praise or condemnation
  • Ragstone, Key of G, Sandstone — not clear why these are capitalised
  • The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
  • para beginning The spire was rebuilt... is a bit choppy, lots of short sentences
  • from the old church were moved to the new church — lose second church?
  • I'm not sure about the Page (1926) citation. It appears to be an on-line version of a real book, and should be formatted as a book rather than a website. Your ref also excludes the title "Houses of Austin canons: The priory of Tonbridge"
  • Any pics of the interior?
  • The motorways in the map look incongruous in this article, is there no alternative pushpin map?

Overall looks pretty good. I hope you have got it right, because I've just started a church article (Saint Nicholas, Blakeney) which I'd like to take to FA eventually, and I've modelled it on this. If it all goes pear-shaped, I'll blame you (:

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):