Talk:Bethesda Methodist Chapel, Hanley/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Prose is fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images and captions are fine. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meets MoS requirements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources checked. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follows sources. No OR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in sufficient depth for the importance of the topic, and would meet most readers requirements for broad coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

My only minor query is regarding focus. I question the need to have a section on the Bethesda name. The name seems generic rather than specific to this chapel. The information could be removed at no loss of relevant information regarding the subject, or at the least absorbed more succinctly into the main body. I have already absorbed the generic information regarding the listing into the main body. Anyway, this is a minor query, and it's open to debate, so I won't hold up the GAN on this minor point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

There is a disconnect between the article title and the information in the article. Not a GA issue, but I would suggest a move back to its original name of Bethesda Methodist Chapel, Hanley. Most sources refer to the chapel using Hanley rather than Stoke-on-Trent, and Henley is where the chapel is located, as indicated throughout the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing

This is a useful and information article which meets GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]