Talk:Baclayon Church/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 00:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 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:

Comments

• I see one {{clarification needed}} tag in the lead.

Clarified. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The Manual of Style suggests the lead should be two paragraphs. The last sentence by itself can probably be merged into the preceding paragraph.

Done. Merged. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• The two one-sentence paragraphs in the history section should probably be merged into the preceding paragraphs, if logical.

Done. Merged. I think it is logical --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the headings, is "Retablo" supposed to be capitalized? It's set in lowercase in the body and captions.

Noted, changes done. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some redundant in-line citations can probably be eliminated (i.e., remove references from the end of consecutive sentences if they're the same reference number).

Noted, changes done. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Toolbox tools turned up nothin' major, so that's good.

Nice work for a beautiful church; sad about the earthquake. ;( On hold for two weeks. 23W 00:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@23W:, Please see my reply after each comments. Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @23W:, you might want to review the nomination. Thanks. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carlojoseph14: Sorry for the wait! I've been tremendously busy, but I'll have a follow-up soon. 23W 23:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Carlojoseph14: Changes look good. I've made the following revisions here; they mostly involve grammar and minor MOS things. (Finally) passing this now; thank you for being patient with me over this month! 23W 22:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)