Talk:Capon Chapel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Will review this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Geography

"I think "Capon Chapel is located in a rural agricultural area of southeastern Hampshire County, within the Cacapon River Valley.[2][8] Dillons Mountain, a forested and narrow anticlinal mountain ridge, rises to the west of the Cacapon River Valley, while the forested, rolling foothills of the anticlinal Timber Ridge rise to the valley's east.[2]" belongs before the drive info.

Done!

Baptist

• Delink burial.
• "According to Baptist Home Mission Monthly", -what date/year was this?

December 1904, done!

Methodist affiliation

• Delink Methodist, already linked.

Done!

• According to historians Maxwell and Swisher -first names?

We do, done!

• We know the caretaker currently, what about the minister/s? Roughly how many regularly attend services?

Added reference to the Capon Chapel UMC site; I'm not sure why I conducted all this research but overlooked the chapel's official UMC website! Done!

Preservation

Hampshire County should really be linked and mentioned in geography and delinked here.

Done!

Architecture

• Delink Timber Ridge

Done!

Cemetery

• Do we know the size of the cemetery?

We do, done!

It's not often I review an article as sound as this for GA Caponer, I could find very little fault with it. Given that it's a small church and so well-researched and written I urge you to open a peer review asap after this has passed and try to attain FA status. I think it certainly has the potential. Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, thank you tremendously for your review of this article, and I appreciate your kind words and suggestions for peer review and perhaps a FAR. I've incorporated each of your above comments and suggestions into the prose. Please take a look and let me know if I've adequately addressed all your concerns. Thank you again for your review! -- Caponer (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

Excellent work, look forward to see it at FAC after a peer review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you again for your review. As always, your suggestions have greatly improved the article, and I look forward to nominating this article as a FAC! Thanks sir. -- Caponer (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)