Talk:Capon Chapel/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Will review this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Geography
"I think "Capon Chapel is located in a rural agricultural area of southeastern Hampshire County, within the Cacapon River Valley.[2][8] Dillons Mountain, a forested and narrow anticlinal mountain ridge, rises to the west of the Cacapon River Valley, while the forested, rolling foothills of the anticlinal Timber Ridge rise to the valley's east.[2]" belongs before the drive info.
- Done!
- Baptist
- Delink burial.
- "According to Baptist Home Mission Monthly", -what date/year was this?
- December 1904, done!
- Methodist affiliation
- Delink Methodist, already linked.
- Done!
- According to historians Maxwell and Swisher -first names?
- We do, done!
- We know the caretaker currently, what about the minister/s? Roughly how many regularly attend services?
- Added reference to the Capon Chapel UMC site; I'm not sure why I conducted all this research but overlooked the chapel's official UMC website! Done!
- Preservation
Hampshire County should really be linked and mentioned in geography and delinked here.
- Done!
- Architecture
- Delink Timber Ridge
- Done!
- Cemetery
- Do we know the size of the cemetery?
- We do, done!
It's not often I review an article as sound as this for GA Caponer, I could find very little fault with it. Given that it's a small church and so well-researched and written I urge you to open a peer review asap after this has passed and try to attain FA status. I think it certainly has the potential. Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld, thank you tremendously for your review of this article, and I appreciate your kind words and suggestions for peer review and perhaps a FAR. I've incorporated each of your above comments and suggestions into the prose. Please take a look and let me know if I've adequately addressed all your concerns. Thank you again for your review! -- Caponer (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Excellent work, look forward to see it at FAC after a peer review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld, thank you again for your review. As always, your suggestions have greatly improved the article, and I look forward to nominating this article as a FAC! Thanks sir. -- Caponer (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)