Talk:College of All Saints, Maidstone/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 04:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within the next couple of days. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * Some of this review includes suggested improvements, not required under WP:WIAGA.


 * Lead
 * Add country.
 * Done--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Establishment and dissolution
 * wl: fourpence
 * Done--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * introductory element lacking a subsequent comma - "For most of its existence the college had an establishment of a master and six chaplains"
 * Done--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Master's list - there's quite a bit of white space. Consider columns or moving the list into its own section at the end of the article.
 * Done. I have put this into two columns of six items in the original place as I think it works best here.
 * Half this section is about the College's history after the dissolution. Either split up the section or rename the header.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Renamed to just "History"--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and the college and its lands were sold" - College has been capitalized elsewhere.
 * Done--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Plate and other valuables..." - which plate?
 * Plate in this context means the collection of silverware belonging to the college rather than a single item. I have linked it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Buildings
 * "a single-storey structure is attached to the south side." - capitalize the 'a'
 * Done--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Notes and reference
 * Perhaps rename the header Notes and references
 * Done. Added the missing terminal letter--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bibliography
 * I'd add Hasted
 * Done. I have also added Page to be consistent.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of the best prose I've read in awhile. I'll put this on hold for the usual 7 days. I've watchlisted it, but do ping me when you're ready for me to re-read the article as I'm working on several things at the moment. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think, I have dealt with these all.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job; looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (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: