Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
assessing as GA class, article has passed the review |
m Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}} |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
{{GA|10:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)|topic=Art and architecture|page=1}} |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|||
|action1date=10:23, 17 September 2011 |
|||
|action1link=Talk:St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1 |
|||
|action1result=listed |
|||
|action1oldid=449891503 |
|||
|dykdate=7 September 2011 |
|||
⚫ | |||
|currentstatus=GA |
|||
|topic=Art and architecture |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Kent|class=GA|importance=low}} |
{{WikiProject Kent|class=GA|importance=low}} |
||
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=GA|importance=}} |
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=GA|importance=}} |
||
{{WikiProject Historic Sites|class=GA|importance=}} |
{{WikiProject Historic Sites|class=GA|importance=}} |
||
⚫ | |||
{{Talk:St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1}} |
{{Talk:St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1}} |
Revision as of 17:20, 19 September 2011
St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 7, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Charles Davis Lucas, the first person to be awarded the Victoria Cross, is buried in the churchyard of St Lawrence's Church in Mereworth, Kent? |
Kent GA‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Christianity GA‑class | ||||||||||
|
Historic sites GA‑class | ||||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:St. Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Review
- 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):
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Art and architecture good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class Kent-related articles
- Low-importance Kent-related articles
- GA-Class Christianity articles
- Unknown-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- GA-Class Historic sites articles
- Unknown-importance Historic sites articles
- WikiProject Historic sites articles