Talk:Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia)/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by West Virginian in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

@West Virginian: I will start a comprehensive review this article. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Infobox edit

  • Tomandjerry211 (alt) and Tomandjerry211, thank you for your review of this article! I've removed the inline citation from the date in the template, but because the NRHP number is not in the article, I've kept the inline citation next to it, as is standard with NRHP property articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Body edit

  • 4 citations for one point seems too much
  • Duplicate link to "Wardensville"
  • It is unecessary to put cites like this: "The sun is hot.[1] The sun is red.[1]"

References edit

  • "of the pdf" is an unecessary suffix
  • Tomandjerry211 (alt) and Tomandjerry211, I've placed this in there based on previous review input. The NRHP nomination form has a strange page numbering scheme based on the form's sections, so for consistency's sake for the reader, I've added "of the PDF" so they know the page number refers to the order of the pages in the PDF versus the section numbers. Let me know if this is a deal breaker. -- West Virginian (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Standardize hyphens in the isbns in the refs
  • Add isbns or oclcs for the sources that don't.
  • Standardize locations in the refs.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply