Jump to content

Talk:St. Joseph's Church, Semarang/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: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Will review within the next three days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • ."As the Catholic population grew, the size of the Gedangan parish diminished as new ones were established." No previous mention of Gedangan. I gather that is the ecclesiastical parish? You might want to mention something about it being within it.
A new church
  • "The tower was also given a clock and bells during this period; the clock was removed in 1978 since the machinery was broken. Lijden died in 1882, and the Jesuit Joannes de Vries became the parish priest; all of St. Joseph's head pastors since have been Jesuits.[" The two semi colons repeat a bit on me here, can you find a way to avoid this?
  • "using bricks imported from the Netherlands " -you might link bricks to Dutch brick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A multi-story presbytery was begun" -can you reword begun? I never like "was begun".
  • Add a space between 1 and August.
Must be the font I'm using!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also installed that year were carvings depicting the fourteen Stations of the Cross" -do we know the artist?
  • No, don't see it anywhere. They're not discussed all that much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Growth
  • Three Jesuits were sent, - I think there should probably be a dash here rather than a comma.
  • I'd rather you stated the church rather than "Another church".♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third church", to be clear that this is yet another. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, interesting insight into Catholic history in Indonesia in context too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]