Talk:St Melangell's Church/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Geardona (talk to me?) 20:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing later (reminder for me) Geardona (talk to me?) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): no huge problems I can see, auto ed came up with nothing. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): , just did a few spot checks of the online sources, dont see any problems. b (citations to reliable sources): A few yellow sources, but nothing huge, all of the tagged yellow sources are fine. c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): ran it through earwigs It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): , the articlr leaces nothing I can think of untouched b (focused): ,, fixed by nom, sections are all consistently on topic, no huge suprises when opening a section, you can find what you need by section title. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The text seems to wander off in some sections.

@Geardona could you give more detailed feedback on where the text becomes unfocused? I could certainly go ahead & trim some sections (eg the veneration of hares paragraph) but I'd like to hear what specifically you think could be changed. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure!
The location section needs to be refocused a little, and possible make the thing about the namesake of the area a section.

Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The location section is quite short - do you think it could simply be renamed to something like "location and surroundings" to more accurately reflect the contents of the section? Also, I can definitely make Melangell into a section. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would make the scope more defined for both! (ping me when done) Geardona (talk to me?) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona done! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.