Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • contribs • count) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have proper read through later, just a few drive-by comments for now.

• The lead looks a bit thin. The only info about the church (as opposed to its fittings) is that it's Palladian
  • Lede rewritten to separate history and architecture. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• benefice, portico, heraldic, pavilion, vestibule, aisle are all unlinked and unexplained. Check through for others, looks a bit under-linked in general to me
  • above mentioned terms linked. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• link wartime to WWII, not all readers will be Brits.
  •  Done
• dissolved,[5] in 1525 — link to dissolution of the monasteries. Also why is the comma there?
  • The fact is from ref #5, and the date is from ref #6. I could move both refs to the end of that sentence if this would be better. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Having thought about this I've moved both refs to the end of the sentence, which allowed the deletion of the errant comma. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• He said that the church seemed designed for Cheapside — it's not clear to me if this is praise or condemnation
  • Nor me, but it's not for us to speculate upon, merely to report accurately what was said. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Ragstone, Key of G, Sandstone — not clear why these are capitalised
  • ragstone and sandstone de-capitalised. Isn't the musical key a Proper Noun? G should be a capital letter in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
  •  Done Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• para beginning The spire was rebuilt... is a bit choppy, lots of short sentences
  • Minor rewrite, split into two paras Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• from the old church were moved to the new church — lose second church?
• I'm not sure about the Page (1926) citation. It appears to be an on-line version of a real book, and should be formatted as a book rather than a website. Your ref also excludes the title "Houses of Austin canons: The priory of Tonbridge"
  • {{cite book}} is in use for the reference. I've added the title as a chapter in that reference, so that the link is from the chapter title and not from the book title. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Any pics of the interior?
  • To come - taken, but not uploaded to Commons yet, currently not on own computer. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• The motorways in the map look incongruous in this article, is there no alternative pushpin map?
  • Not as far as I know. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall looks pretty good. I hope you have got it right, because I've just started a church article (Saint Nicholas, Blakeney) which I'd like to take to FA eventually, and I've modelled it on this. If it all goes pear-shaped, I'll blame you (:

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dus2kPHo?url=http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/ to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)