Talk:St John's, Ashfield/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now completed a quick read through of this article. It appears to be comprehensive, well-referenced and well-illustrated, so "quick-failing" the nomination is ruled out.

I strongly suspect that this article will gain GA-status this time round, but first I need to complete my review. At this stage in the process, I'll be going through it section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. I will mostly be highlighting "problems", if any, so if I don't find much in the way of "problem" this part of the review could be quite short.

I expect that this will take me another day or so to complete. Pyrotec (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to review it. I will have an internet connection for the next 36 hours, but if there are queries or fixes required after that, I will only be able to respond to them after about a week. --99of9 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted. I will try and complete the review within that time scale. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• History -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC) - The (referenced) comment: "The church was subsequently referred to as the "Mother Church of Western Suburbs"" is rather vague. I assume from the position of the statement that it happened some time between 1840 and 1910: this should be clarified.

• You're right. I've moved this sentence to a less vague context later in the history section. It wasn't necessarily a widely used term, but since it appeared as the title of a newspaper feature, I figured it was worth a mention.--99of9 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 9 (Ruth Smith and Ron White (1980). A Sketchbook of St. John's Ashfield.) appears to be a book and is used multiple times (a to l). There are two minor problems: firstly inconsistent use of author names - the first seven references (where appropriate) use "surname, first name(s)" whereas this one uses "first name(s) surname"; and secondly no page number(s) is/are given. If all the citations relate to a small number of pages (such 10-11, 14-15) then I have no problems with a single citation; however if many different pages are being called up then I suggest that you call the reference several times (if you need clarification see citations 94, 95, 96, 97 & 98 or just ask).

•  Done --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 15, 26, 37 (and possibly other) are also inconsistently author-named as "first name(s) surname".

•  Done I think I got them all. --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Land and buildings & Ministry -

• These two sections appeared to be OK.

• WP:Lead -

Looks OK.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. There are just a few minor problems with formating of citations. Once these have been resolved, I'll award the article GA-status.

Thanks for reviewing. This is my first ever GA, so it's very significant for me. --99of9 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)