Talk:Church Missions House

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Kingsif in topic Did you know nomination

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 Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 
Church Missions House

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

  • My DYK experience is long stale, just commenting that this expansion is amazing to see in an article so old. I'm even more curious now about a building I've been in recently. Well done. Star Mississippi 21:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
    • Star Mississippi, thanks, I really appreciate it. I feel similarly to you as well. Even though I've commuted past the building daily for the better part of a decade, I never took the time to stop and look at it before. Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
        Interesting building, great GA on fine sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I hope we'll get the good licensed image. I'd prefer the original hook, but all are good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church Missions House/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Add a short description and then WP:ALT text to every image.
    "an offshoot of Swedish photography museum" → "an offshoot of the Swedish photography museum"
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  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:  
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks. I have done these. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply