Talk:Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya

Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that according to legend, a group of Circassians attempting to destroy the roof of the medieval Church of St Nicholas (pictured) in Sapareva Banya, Bulgaria, fled in horror when one of them fell to his death?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for devoting your time and looking forward to your review! — Toдor Boжinov — 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A short, but interesting, well-referenced and well-illustrated article on a local church.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
I did a couple of minor edits to improve the grammar.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Yes, however the WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article (which it did well) and to summarise the main points of the article. I copied a pasted a few words from the Architecture section into the Lead, as it did not provide much in the way of a summary.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Yes, but there may be a problem with reference 2, used five times, my web brower gives an error message - "The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded".
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and well illustrated article.

Thanks for your review and lead expansion! I figure you were unable to access the ref 2 URL because part of the address is in Cyrillic. I'll WebCite all URLs in the article so that we don't lose them in the future :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]