Talk:St Peter's Church, Maidstone
![]() | St Peter's Church, Maidstone was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 7, 2023). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:St Peter's Church, Maidstone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Tbf69, I'll be reviewing this article but just want to give you the heads-up straight away that I think it will be quick-failed. This is due to the very limited content of the article and therefore failure to comply with criteria 3a: Broad in coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic. I'll add some more detailed feedback in the table below shortly. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Tbf69, unfortunately this is a quick-fail due to failing criteria 3a (lack of coverage) and 2d (no copyright violations or plagiarism). I think complying with criteria 3a will take longer than we usually allow for GA reviews, hence the quick fail. As a matter of urgency, please review the article for copyvios and close paraphrasing. Material should not be directly copied from other websites or sources into a Wikipedia article. It also should not be closely paraphrased. You can use this website to detect whether an article has possible copyright infringement. In terms of improving the article for GA, please address the copyvio issues first, then see my recommendations below for further sources you can use to expand the article. Please do get in touch if you have any questions. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 00:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Additional sources you may wish to use to expand the article
- https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gentleman_s_Magazine_and_Historical_Revi/GfsRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=st+peter%27s+church+maidstone&pg=PA457&printsec=frontcover (p.489 onwards).
- https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Gentleman_s_Magazine_Or_Monthly_Inte/GrYUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=st+peter%27s+church+maidstone&pg=PA310&printsec=frontcover (p.310)
- https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Evangelical_Register/vy0EAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=st+peter%27s+church+maidstone&pg=PA401&printsec=frontcover (p.401)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead sections
Layout
Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
|
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
I have not reviewed all sources, but I think this is enough evidence to fail the article on the basis of copyright violations being evident.
|
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
|
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
|
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
|
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Former good article nominees
- Start-Class Anglicanism articles
- Low-importance Anglicanism articles
- Start-Class Christianity articles
- Start-Class Architecture articles
- Low-importance Architecture articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- Start-Class Historic sites articles
- Low-importance Historic sites articles
- WikiProject Historic sites articles
- Start-Class Kent-related articles
- Low-importance Kent-related articles