Talk:St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo Episcopal Church/GA1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Gazozlu in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Gazozlu (talk · contribs) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Complies
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Complies
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Complies
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Complies
- C. It contains no original research:
- No original research identified.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- No copyright violations identified.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Maybe, depending on if the section on St. John's in Arden is relevant.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Maybe, depending on if the section on St. John's in Arden is relevant enought.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Neutral
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No significant edit warring going on on this article.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Good selection of images
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall good article, just a few questions.
- Pass or Fail:
- Some comments:
- In the section St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo#History#Early historyThe sentence containing "a wedding gown first worn in 1768" is grammatically correct however might run a bit long to be easily read.
- What is meant by "boudered bases" in the St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo#Architecture section?
- What is the relevance of the section on St. John's in Arden St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo#Worship#St. John's in Arden ?
- @Gazozlu: Thanks for taking up this review! To address your concerns:
- I agree, I'll think about how to tighten that up.
- Landau uses the term "bouldered bases" when describing houses with bases made out of boulders which may have inspired Bruce Price's nearby gatehouse. Perhaps putting that term in quotes and adding an explanatory note next to it would help.
- St. John's is listed on the St. Mary's website under the Campus Tour and Service Info sections - maybe it doesn't require its own section but I feel it ought to be mentioned.
- Hope this helps! firvales73 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Gazozlu: Thanks for taking up this review! To address your concerns:
- All sounds good except the last point, in-fact the whole St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo#Worship section seems out of place. Perhaps it should rather be part of a larger section dedicated to present day utilization of the church. Within that section can be a section about the current community leaders and even include the name of the current main clergy and/or ministers belonging to the church. And the section can also include the various activities that take place as part of the church under its present day organisation. Gazozlu (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- That makes sense, though it could also be included in a subsection of the history section, called "Present Day" for instance. I'll start drafting something. firvales73 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that having its own section makes more sense. I've added and made some changes to what is now the "Today" section. Does this seem more appropriate? firvales73 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's good, you could also include a sentence about present day use in the introduction paragraph of the article in an appropriate place. Gazozlu (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
T