Talk:Immaculate Conception Catholic Church (Celina, Ohio)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
1. "Immaculate Conception Catholic Church is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church..." – It is not a parish (territorial unit or people in the parish), but a building and the parish church. I suggest changing it to "Immaculate Conception Catholic Church is a Roman Catholic parish church in..."
  The article is primarily about the parish: see the next sentence, which reads "it owns a complex of buildings", not "it is one of a complex of buildings". If this were meant to be an article only about the church building, it would be inappropriate to include so much parish history and so much information about other buildings. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  There has been some discussion on this at WikiProject Catholicism. Please see this for the discussion. If this is about the parish, the arch/diocese should be mentioned in the lead. – SMasters (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I have made the changes. – SMasters (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Founded later than many other Catholic churches in its heavily Catholic region of western Ohio..." – Is it meant to say, "...in the heavily..."?
  No, "its" was meant; I'll not complain if it gets changed, but that's not a typo. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Done SMasters (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. "A parish was formally erected..." – Just want to check. Are parishes erected, or are they created?
  I've encountered both wordings in some sources about this church and others in its region. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although not a requirement for GA, since changes will need to be made, it would be nice to comply with MOS:NUM – spell out anything under ten, and use numerals for anything above that number. This is a nice "to have", but is not compulsory.
  What do you see that's wrong in this way? I've read over the article, and I don't see any problems. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I never said it was wrong. I said that it does not comply with MOS:NUM, and added that it's not compulsory for GA. However, if you ever take it to WP:FA, be prepared to change all of these as it is a requirement there. I thought that since changes are being made, it might as well be done. Once again, it's up to you. – SMasters (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The layout of the picture in the Church section causes the word "generation" to be orphaned on my screen. Make the picture smaller or reposition it higher (beside the "Church" heading), to avoid this. Same with the elementary school picture. It is causing the "High school" sub-head to indent. Make it smaller or move it to the right.
Umm, the church picture is already at the "Church" heading, and if I move any other images up to that heading, we get into sandwiching issues. Moreover, the text is fine on my screen, and if I make the change that you want, it will mess it up for someone else's screen. Nyttend (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SMasters (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Article is properly referenced.

B. Citation of 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:
Article complies with WP:NPOV.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Article is stable.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
All images check out and are properly captioned.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
With the exception of the lead, the article is well written and referenced. Just a few minor things to be fixed before it can be passed. – SMasters (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have copy edited the lead, and am now confident that the article meets all the requirements for a GA. – SMasters (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]