Talk:Capon Chapel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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

"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.
 * Geography
 * 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!

Hampshire County should really be linked and mentioned in geography and delinked here.
 * Preservation
 * 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, 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)
 * , 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

Excellent work, look forward to see it at FAC after a peer review.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , 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)