Talk:St Andrew's Church, Chew Stoke/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave some initial comments within 24 hours but I'll have a quick read through now. I mainly focus on copy editing issues. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Lead

 * Per WP:CITELEAD, it would be best to move/relocate the citation into the main article from "is a Grade II* listed building.[1]" Another citation is in the last paragraph too.
 * The prose in the lead is acceptable and complies per the GA criteria.

Architecture

 * A small expansion is required if this section were to meet the GA criteria because this section is not only too short but the prose does not flow very well. For example:
 * "It is built of local red sandstone and limestone topped by lead roofs. It includes a nave," - what is built of red sandstone? The sentence just opens without saying what it is talking about (is it the tower?). I've merged this into the first sentence, you can change it if you want?
 * The whole church is of Red Sandstone - I've revised.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The three-stage tower, which was built around 1475" - this doesn't seem to make sense to me (or another new reader!), it sounds like the church has more than one tower?
 * I've reworded to tower of three stages later in the sentence.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Church interior

 * "The inside of the church is decorated with 156 angels in wood and stone. One of the wooden angels has a broken wing and various stories are suggested as a cause for this." - such as? Is there any information on this claim?
 * I've removed this as it is local oral history and I can't provide a citation. Its a story told to local school children to encourage them to look at the decoration of the church about an angel which couldn't fly (but a more likely explanation is that one became damage and was replaced by an incompetent carver).&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "It also contains a bronze plaque commemorating the eleven people from the village who died in World War I and six from World War II" - what contains a plaque? How about The church inteiror also contains a bronze plaque commemorating the eleven people from the village who died in the First World War and six from the Second World War (you can always change this if you want!).
 * Revised.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Churchyard memorials

 * "In the churchyard is the reconstructed Moreton Cross which was moved here when Chew Valley Lake was flooded" - when was the lake flooded?
 * 1950s added.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The base of a cross shaft in the churchyard, about 24 metres south west of the tower" - this should be converted into feet as well
 * Converted.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold
One thing I've noticed about this article is that the overall prose is very choppy and is a concern if it this article were to pass. Much of the article needs a good copy edit before it can meet the GA criteria. Maybe User:Eric Corbett or someone else can help? Some information in the article doesn't make sense because of the way it is laid out. However, I've checked the references and they all seem to meet the GA criteria and so does the lead. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days until all of those issues have been addressed, if they have been addressed (and the overall prose has been improved) then I'll look through the article again and see if it meets the criteria. Thanks! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments. I have asked User:Eric Corbett if he would be willing to help as he is used to my poor prose.&mdash; Rod talk 20:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed some typos in the lede. Shane Cyrus (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted
The prose has definitely improved and now the article meets the GA criteria. Both of you, well done on all the work! The lead complies per WP:LEAD and so do the imagery, the references are also GA standard and put simply everything now checks out. Looks like another Chew Valley GA to add to the collection! Thank you for addressing those concerns so quickly. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)