Talk:St Peter's Church, Sudbury

St Peter's Church, Sudbury 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 18, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 15, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the font in St Peter's Church, Sudbury, was removed in the 17th century to be used as a horse trough, but was returned to the church when the horses refused to drink from it?

East Anglia: Suffolk Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suffolk task force.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Peter's Church, Sudbury is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria edit

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is good, I made one minor copy-edit.

~~The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Sufficeintly references, sources, apper to be RS, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~I wonder if there is anything more to be added; famous vicars?; notable burials; is there a graveyard?~~
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):
Licensed and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Just the lead and queries in the coverage section. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
OK, that is good enough now. I am happy to list. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Responses edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've expanded the lead and I think that it now summarises the article as a whole. As for broadness, I don't seem to be able to find anything regarding famous vicars or notable burials. There is a tiny burial area around the church, but I can't find a RS for this. I'm sure that it's particularly notable anyway. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic