Talk:St Cynfarwy's Church, Llechgynfarwy

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:St Cynfarwy's Church, Llechgynfarwy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 16:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is mostly reasonably well written, but a few things stood out:

   There was a church here before the 15th century, however: the font is from the 12th century, indicating the existence of a church here at that time, and a church was recorded in this location in the Norwich Taxation of 1254. Could this be rephrased so that we do not get three instances of the word "church" in the sentence?

   Kennedy's work, which rebuilt the church "almost from the foundations" (in the words of a 2009 guide to the buildings of the region), left no datable features. I think the brackets are redundant here, the commas suffice.

   And from the lead: although as of November 2011 there has not been an incumbent priest since September 2009. This phrase is a little clumsy, perhaps something on the lines of "although there has not been an incumbent priest since September 2009."

   Thanks for addressing these points. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources look good and those that I can access support the statements, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sufficient coverage without trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. 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):

   One image used, licensed and captioned. it would be good to get hold of and interior shot is possible (Not a requirement however)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days fro a few tweaks to the prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

   I am happy that the article meets the criteria so it will be listed. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressed, I hope. Interior shots would be lovely but unfortunately most Anglesey churches are closed except for services. Bencherlite^Talk 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.