Talk:St Edern's Church, Bodedern/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 06:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously GA standard, just a few comments
 * I made these edits, please check. Some sentences opened with a single space, some with double. For consistency, I made all the doubles I spotted single, in line with modern good practice. It doesn't matter either way, as long as it's consistent, although US spacing looks odd to me in a medieval church article.
 * Multiple refs should be in numerical order
 * I'm surprised that in Ynys Mon, of all places, the church doesn't seem to have a Welsh name. You would expect Bodedern to have a Llanedern.
 * although the original site may have been about half a mile away' &mdash; can you expand on this?
 * Windows and glass &mdash; why not just "windows"?
 * The "extensive" work cost about £1,000 &mdash; perhaps add something like at that time, to make it clear this was the contemporary cost, not a conversion?
 * He is depicted as one of the Biblical characters &mdash; which?
 * Celtic Studios &mdash; not a GA issue, but I'd be inclined to write a short stub if it's notable, or delink if it's not
 * I think only one ref (Carr) gives a publisher's location, for consistency, give location for all or none
 * You don't need to give retrieval dates for any of the on-line copies of real books or journals. The 19th century authors, at least, are unlikely to be updating their works

I look forward to passing this in the near future  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and the light workload! Even now I'm 20+ GAs into my Anglesey church project, it's interesting to see how different reviewers pick up different points that I can apply to past and future articles; very helpful. Hope these alterations are what you had in mind; please let me know if there's anything else. BencherliteTalk 07:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits were mainly fine, although I thought that linking "paten" twice in the same paragraph was unnecessary. Double-spacing is my default word-processing habit, so I type away quite happily as if I was at work and then of course can't spot any inconsistencies as double spaces aren't displayed... Thanks for picking up the bad link to "font", something that I see (using "what links here") many other church articles do by mistake as well!
 * One instance, I think, now fixed.
 * There's a Llanedeyrn down south, but you're right, no "Llanedern" (I'd forgotten that the Gwynedd village is just called "Edern"). "Bodedern" is a Welsh name though (I've added "Welsh" to make it "Welsh prefix" in the explanation of the name's meaning, for clarity).
 * Added something
 * OK
 * OK
 * My source says "Simeon", which thinking about it must be Simeon the Righteous rather than any of the other Simeons. Added.
 * They are notable (in fact, there's a whole book about them). Maybe one day, but not at the moment, and particularly not without the book. I've found that there are lots of articles about stained glass companies anyway, more than I would have expected, so I think someone's working through them anyway. I'll leave the link in for now, I think.
 * Done
 * Done.

"Paten" double linking was my error. Since St Nick's is my first church, I tended to double-check that links went where I hoped, didn't even know there were two types of font before. Thanks for pointing out the inconsistent apostrophe in the userbox. Right, let's do it!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: