Talk:St Mary's Church, Pentraeth

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at this over the next few days and then start to make some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• The lead needs building. SilkTork *^YES! 01:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Henry Kennedy is mentioned in the Architecture section purely by surname. Though he is explained in the previous section, people don't always read articles through from start to finish. Somebody purely interested in the architecture might go straight to that section, so would not know who Kennedy is. SilkTork *^YES! 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• "Piscina" is explained by using the word "stoup", which in itself is an unfamiliar word. Perhaps "drain" is more useful? SilkTork *^YES! 02:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• We have "cinquefoils and tracery" again... SilkTork *^YES! 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Would "Descriptions" or "Listing and descriptions" serve in place of Assessment? There is a sense of either a financial investigation or a formal summing up in the term Assessment that doesn't quite sit with the contents, which are commentaries or descriptions. SilkTork *^YES! 02:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

GA points

Another good article. There is a fair amount of content that could be mentioned in the WP:lead as per previous two GANS, and there are some words which need explaining, otherwise all is fine. I'll hold until March 3rd, or can be pinged before Friday. SilkTork *^YES! 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses

Thanks for the review and your comments.

• I'm not convinced that Kennedy needs to be reintroduced in the second section having been introduced just 1.5 paragraphs earlier. If I'm reintroducing him, then the logic of this argument would seem to suggest that I also ought to explain the 1882 work. So we'd end up with something like "and Henry Kennedy (architect of the Diocese of Bangor) added red sandstone dressings in his 1882 work when he oversaw a partial but extensive rebuild of the church in 1882," If the article was longer and the mentions were further apart, it might be worth it. Otherwise, if we work on the basis that someone might start reading with the second section not the first, I might as well just repeat everything from the first section in the second section, which would be a lot of wasted time and words. I've added him into the lead, though, which might help address your point another way.
• changed to "piscina (a water basin)"
• Added explanations for tracery and cinquefoils
• I disagree that assessment only implies financial investigation; it's simply a suitable word for a section that basically says "Cadw have assessed it as Grade X for Y reasons, and here's what other people have said about it." "Descriptions" doesn't really work for me, as I've spent the previous paragraph(s) of the "architecture and fittings" section describing the church, i.e. giving a commentary on its physical appearance. This section is for qualitative views / assessments by a quango and other writers. I had a look at the other GA churches, and none really have a section of this nature, so I can't steal any ideas from them. However, I notice that St Mary's Church, Astbury had "assessment" as well until you changed it, so I'm not the only person who likes it as a section title...
• Lead expanded.

How's it looking now? Bencherlite^Talk 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree about Descriptions - that is already used in a number of articles for a basic description of something, rather than any form of formal review or assessment with an expert opinion or viewpoint. I modified Assessment in St Mary's Church to Assessments to see how that sat. There is more than one assessment taking place, so the plural seemed both appropriate and helpful. But it's a minor issue....

Kennedy in the lead works.

Amendments are great. Listing..... SilkTork *^YES! 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)