Talk:Muchelney Abbey/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Will leave some comments now. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * The lead's prose feels somewhat disconnected - while it is comprehensive and does explain the article well it feels rather choppy. I just looked at Bath Abbey's lead and felt like it was a good example. Could you merge some of the third paragraph into the first or expand the first?
 * I've expanded the first paragraph - does this help?&mdash; Rod talk 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Other than this the lead does summarise the article well, so this part meets the GA criteria!

History

 * "The refounders of the Abbey is not completely clear; however in a document of 1535, drawn up following the Valor Ecclesiasticus, Centwine, Ine, Æthelstan and Æthelred are claimed as founders." - this doesn't make a lot of sense! Were Centwine, Ine, Æthelstan and Æthelred the founders? How about something like The re-founders of the Abbey are not completely clear; however in a document dated from 1535 (drawn up following the Valor Ecclesiasticus), Centwine, Ine, Æthelstan and Æthelred are claimed as founders or something similar to that?
 * I've used your suggested tweaks.&mdash; Rod talk 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The flow of this section is again somewhat choppy, but I've merged a paragraph according to chronological order so it appears smoother. If this is OK with you? But other than that the section is comprehensive and everything else appears fine.

On hold
This is a compact and broad article, however the only things standing in the way of it becoming GA are a few lead issues and some confusing sentences in the History section. There is also a broken ref but other than this everything meets the GA criteria. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have been addressed I'll take another look. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
thank you for addressing those concerns so swiftly! The article now meets the GA criteria. The lead is in good standing, all the references are fine and the prose is looking a lot better. This is a well-written article - one to add to the vast collection of Somerset GA's! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 21:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)