 | Wychbold was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 5, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Wychbold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Taking a look now. I will copyedit as I go (please revert any bits I inadvertently change the meaning of) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- You need to avoid choppy one-sentence paras. Best way is to embellish material in article.
- Add meaning of -bold. Also, what source mentioned the name in 682?? That sounds fascinating....(ok I see the charter material - do the charter have a specific names?)
- Any dates for iron age? Specific artifacts or sites?
- ditto Roman artifacts or sites?
- what specifically did de cantilupe own?
- expand about Wychbold Hall
- In the Geography and demography section, I don't get an idea of what is around the village.
- There also stood a Congregational church within the village, dating from 1836 - err, what happened to it...
There are several sentences without references too. Please find and add.
Overall needs some buffing but has the basic structure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Status query
editCas Liber, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, User:PotentPotables has not edited on Wikipedia since February 28, the day before your review, and the issues haven't been addressed. After over two months without a response, it's probably time to close it. Perhaps, if they return later in the year and wish to renominate after fixing up the article per the above review, you could offer to review it again then, but that's entirely up to you. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- is ok, but choppiness needs addressing - Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: - references still needed, some embellishing and massaging of prose. I will happily re-review if someone re-nominates and am happy to be pinged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)