A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
St Melangell's Church 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 October 21, 2009, and March 6, 2024. The text of the entries was:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Saint Melangell's shrine was reconstructed from pieces of the 12th-century original found in the walls of the church and lychgate? Source: Britnell, W.J.; Watson, K. (1994). "Saint Melangell's Shrine, Pennant Melangell". Montgomeryshire Collections. 82: 147.
5x expanded by Sawyer-mcdonell (talk). Self-nominated at 00:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/St Melangell's Church, Pennant Melangell; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: This is looking good so far, but I have one fix to ask for before I can approve this. The first couple sentences in § Architecture need to be rewritten, as they're too closely paraphrased. See the report. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- that little bit in the architecture section is a leftover from before my rewrite; fixing it now. :) sawyer * he/they * talk 04:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- rewrote that section; hopefully it should be good now! sawyer * he/they * talk 04:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Approved. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- rewrote that section; hopefully it should be good now! sawyer * he/they * talk 04:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
GA Review edit
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:St Melangell's Church, Pennant Melangell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewing later (reminder for me) Geardona (talk to me?) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): , just did a few spot checks of the online sources, dont see any problems.
b (citations to reliable sources): A few yellow sources, but nothing huge, all of the tagged yellow sources are fine.
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism): ran it through earwigs
- a (references): , just did a few spot checks of the online sources, dont see any problems.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): , the articlr leaces nothing I can think of untouched
b (focused): ,, fixed by nom, sections are all consistently on topic, no huge suprises when opening a section, you can find what you need by section title.
- a (major aspects): , the articlr leaces nothing I can think of untouched
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:· · ·
- The text seems to wander off in some sections.
- Sure!
The location section needs to be refocused a little, and possible make the thing about the namesake of the area a section. Thanks Geardona (talk to me?) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) - Sure, that would make the scope more defined for both! (ping me when done) Geardona (talk to me?) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)