Talk:St Peter's Church, Maidstone

St Peter's Church, Maidstone was nominated as a Art and architecture good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 7, 2023). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Anglicanism Low‑importance

	St Peter's Church, Maidstone is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AnglicanismWikipedia:WikiProject AnglicanismTemplate:WikiProject AnglicanismAnglicanism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Tbf69, I'll be reviewing this article but just want to give you the heads-up straight away that I think it will be quick-failed. This is due to the very limited content of the article and therefore failure to comply with criteria 3a: Broad in coverage, addressing the main aspects of the topic. I'll add some more detailed feedback in the table below shortly. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 23:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Tbf69, unfortunately this is a quick-fail due to failing criteria 3a (lack of coverage) and 2d (no copyright violations or plagiarism). I think complying with criteria 3a will take longer than we usually allow for GA reviews, hence the quick fail. As a matter of urgency, please review the article for copyvios and close paraphrasing. Material should not be directly copied from other websites or sources into a Wikipedia article. It also should not be closely paraphrased. You can use this website to detect whether an article has possible copyright infringement. In terms of improving the article for GA, please address the copyvio issues first, then see my recommendations below for further sources you can use to expand the article. Please do get in touch if you have any questions. Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 00:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Additional sources you may wish to use to expand the article

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose looks broadly ok at the moment.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sections The lead is too short. It should be expanded to cover some detail from every section of the article (so for example, something about it's architecture, something about its history, etc.). Layout One-sentence paragraphs, of which there are four in this article, should be avoided. Words to watch At the moment, none identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources/citations/references are included in the appropriate places.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I'm not convinced that www.kentchurches.info is the most appropriate source given it seems to be someone's personal website. Historic England is a better source. In my reply above, I have suggested some further sources you may wish to use in order to expand the article. St Peter's Church is located between the River Medway, and the Medway Valley line. It would be great if an appropriate source could back this up, which in turn could maybe provide some more info on its location.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio and close paraphrasing is evident, which I'd suggest correcting as soon as possible: Source (Historic England): In 1395 the hospital was merged with the new foundation of All Saints, Maidstone. Article: In 1395, the hospital was merged with the new foundation of All Saints, Maidstone. Source (Historic England): The exterior is in a simple, Early English style Article: The exterior is in a simple, Early English style. Source (Historic England): The church began as the chapel of a hospital dedicated to SS Peter and Paul called the Newark of Maidstone, founded by Boniface, Archbishop of Canterbury (1244-1270) in the mid C13 for pilgrims crossing the nearby Medway. Article: The building started life as the chapel for a hospital (dedicated to SS Peter and Paul called the Newark of Maidstone) for pilgrims crossing the river, travelling to Canterbury. Source (St Michael All Angels): The second paragraph of the source is basically the same as the first section of the History section of the article. I have not reviewed all sources, but I think this is enough evidence to fail the article on the basis of copyright violations being evident.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm afraid this criteria is not met, and most likely would not be met in the usual length of a GA review (one week). I have looked at the sources which are currently referenced in the article, and they have a lot of information which could be added into the article. You can use this information to add more relevant detail to the article. For example the Historic England entry has details about the church's architecture would would sit nicely in the Building section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Unassessed due to the short length of the article and failure to comply with criteria 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Unassessed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Unassessed.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image is tagged with copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image in the infobox is relevant to the topic. However, it could do with a more specific caption (e.g. "View of St Peter's Church from xyz road"). If there are any other images available of the church's interior, or other angles of its exterior to demonstrate different architectural aspects, I'd recommend adding those in. Wikimedia commons and Flickr are the places to check.
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic