Talk:Leicester Cathedral/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Firefly50 (talk · contribs) 13:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Summary
[edit]This article is well written, uses good grammar, and is easily understood by those who have little knowledge of ths subject. It also abides by the Wikipedia rules and meets all criteria regarding Wikipedia Good Articles. Looking at the page history, we can see that there have been no editing conflicts in recent history, and past edits have only served to improve and update the article.
Analysis
[edit]The article is detailed enough in places, without being overly-complicated or too in depth, meaning that other, less knowledgeable, readers can easily understand the subject matter. The content is of a high standard, and provides good references and the historical data is accurate and can be verified. Furthermore, the style of the article is continuous throughtout. The article also contains useful photos that are directly relevant to the subject of this article, and all of which are found on WikiCommons and do not infringe copyright.
Possible Improvements
[edit]Whilst much of what is written is accurate, I do however notice that certain important parts of the Cathedrals life are missed out. For example, there is no mention of the Royal Visit in 2012 - perhaps a new topic could be made for this? Also, perhaps more information could be provided about the staff. Looking on other Wikipedia pages of other Cathedrals, I notice that the staff qualifications are listed - the same should be done here on this page if at all possible. I highly recommend adding a floorplan of the cathedral, and perhaps images showing the transformation of the church over the centuries. The introduction of a gallery at the end of the article would also be highly recommended.
Decision
[edit]After discussing this matter with several other wikipedia editors, and taking the time to think this over and accounting for all the points mentioned above, it is my decision that this article has passed the review, and should be listed as a Wikipedia Good Article