Talk:Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for devoting your time and looking forward to your review! — Toдor Boжinov — 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A short, but interesting, well-referenced and well-illustrated article on a local church.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- I did a couple of minor edits to improve the grammar.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Yes, however the WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article (which it did well) and to summarise the main points of the article. I copied a pasted a few words from the Architecture section into the Lead, as it did not provide much in the way of a summary.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Yes, but there may be a problem with reference 2, used five times, my web brower gives an error message - "The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded".
- 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:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and well illustrated article.
- Thanks for your review and lead expansion! I figure you were unable to access the ref 2 URL because part of the address is in Cyrillic. I'll WebCite all URLs in the article so that we don't lose them in the future :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)