Talk:Gunwalloe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 16:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * First two sentences of history could read better. They seem to be lacking context.
 * Don't mix and match units in the second paragraph of history (must readers know what a "square league" is?). It's also unclear how this paragraph is relevant to the subject at hand.
 * There is no reason for "extremely valuable cargo of spices, indigo, drugs, Indian piece goods and 100 tons of pepper" to have quote marks. It's perfectly doable to write in your own words.
 * Only the first letter of a section header should be capitalized.
 * The common surnames section, most of the national heritage section, and most of the archaeological significance section are all unreferenced (you should perhaps merge those last two sections, by the way).
 * Many references seem to be simply external links with titles, not full citations.
 * This article seems to have many large gaps in its coverage of the subject. Where's the information on demographics? Geography and geology? Wildlife and plantlife? History of the parish itself?
 * In the gallery, the blurry closeups of various bits of the church architecture aren't really relevant to the parish itself.

Sorry if this all seems a bit harsh, but unfortunately this article is closer to start-class (C-class at best) than it is to GA. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  16:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

 * Well-written
 * The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Symbol question.svg
 * Verifiable and no original research
 * It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Symbol question.svg
 * It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * It contains no original research: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Broad in its coverage
 * It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Symbol oppose vote.svg
 * It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: Symbol question.svg
 * Neutral
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Stable
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images
 * Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Symbol support vote.svg
 * Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Symbol question.svg
 * On hold
 * Fail