Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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
  • Lede rewritten to separate history and architecture. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• benefice, portico, heraldic, pavilion, vestibule, aisle are all unlinked and unexplained. Check through for others, looks a bit under-linked in general to me
  • above mentioned terms linked. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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?
  • The fact is from ref #5, and the date is from ref #6. I could move both refs to the end of that sentence if this would be better. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Having thought about this I've moved both refs to the end of the sentence, which allowed the deletion of the errant comma. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• He said that the church seemed designed for Cheapside — it's not clear to me if this is praise or condemnation
  • Nor me, but it's not for us to speculate upon, merely to report accurately what was said. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Ragstone, Key of G, Sandstone — not clear why these are capitalised
  • ragstone and sandstone de-capitalised. Isn't the musical key a Proper Noun? G should be a capital letter in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
  •  Done Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• para beginning The spire was rebuilt... is a bit choppy, lots of short sentences
  • Minor rewrite, split into two paras Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• 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"
  • {{cite book}} is in use for the reference. I've added the title as a chapter in that reference, so that the link is from the chapter title and not from the book title. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Any pics of the interior?
  • To come - taken, but not uploaded to Commons yet, currently not on own computer. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• The motorways in the map look incongruous in this article, is there no alternative pushpin map?
  • Not as far as I know. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Review

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):