Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ~~I'll have proper read through later, just a few drive-by comments for now.~~

The lead looks a bit thin. The only info about the church (as opposed to its fittings) is that it's Palladian
- Lede rewritten to separate history and architecture. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
benefice, portico, heraldic, pavilion, vestibule, aisle are all unlinked and unexplained. Check through for others, looks a bit under-linked in general to me
- above mentioned terms linked. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link wartime to WWII, not all readers will be Brits.
- Done
dissolved,[5] in 1525 — link to dissolution of the monasteries. Also why is the comma there?
- The fact is from ref #5, and the date is from ref #6. I could move both refs to the end of that sentence if this would be better. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having thought about this I've moved both refs to the end of the sentence, which allowed the deletion of the errant comma. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He said that the church seemed designed for Cheapside — it's not clear to me if this is praise or condemnation
- Nor me, but it's not for us to speculate upon, merely to report accurately what was said. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ragstone, Key of G, Sandstone — not clear why these are capitalised
- ragstone and sandstone de-capitalised. Isn't the musical key a Proper Noun? G should be a capital letter in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
- Done Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
para beginning The spire was rebuilt... is a bit choppy, lots of short sentences
- Minor rewrite, split into two paras Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from the old church were moved to the new church — lose second church?
I'm not sure about the Page (1926) citation. It appears to be an on-line version of a real book, and should be formatted as a book rather than a website. Your ref also excludes the title "Houses of Austin canons: The priory of Tonbridge"
- {{cite book}} is in use for the reference. I've added the title as a chapter in that reference, so that the link is from the chapter title and not from the book title. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any pics of the interior?
- To come - taken, but not uploaded to Commons yet, currently not on own computer. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The motorways in the map look incongruous in this article, is there no alternative pushpin map?
- Not as far as I know. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looks pretty good. I hope you have got it right, because I've just started a church article (Saint Nicholas, Blakeney) which I'd like to take to FA eventually, and I've modelled it on this. If it all goes pear-shaped, I'll blame you (:

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):