Talk:St Lawrence's Church, Mereworth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk • contribs • count ) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have proper read through later, just a few drive-by comments for now.
 * The lead looks a bit thin. The only info about the church (as opposed to its fittings) is that it's Palladian
 * Lede rewritten to separate history and architecture. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * benefice, portico, heraldic, pavilion, vestibule, aisle are all unlinked and unexplained. Check through for others, looks a bit under-linked in general to me
 * above mentioned terms linked. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * link wartime to WWII, not all readers will be Brits.
 * dissolved,[5] in 1525 &mdash; link to dissolution of the monasteries. Also why is the comma there?
 * The fact is from ref #5, and the date is from ref #6. I could move both refs to the end of that sentence if this would be better. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Having thought about this I've moved both refs to the end of the sentence, which allowed the deletion of the errant comma. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He said that the church seemed designed for Cheapside &mdash; it's not clear to me if this is praise or condemnation
 * Nor me, but it's not for us to speculate upon, merely to report accurately what was said. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ragstone, Key of G, Sandstone &mdash; not clear why these are capitalised
 * ragstone and sandstone de-capitalised. Isn't the musical key a Proper Noun? G should be a capital letter in any case. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The advowson of the church was granted to Sir George Nevill... can this and the next sentence be merged?
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * para beginning The spire was rebuilt... is a bit choppy, lots of short sentences
 * Minor rewrite, split into two paras Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * from the old church were moved to the new church &mdash; lose second church?
 * I'm not sure about the Page (1926) citation. It appears to be an on-line version of a real book, and should be formatted as a book rather than a website. Your ref also excludes the title "Houses of Austin canons: The priory of Tonbridge"
 * cite book is in use for the reference. I've added the title as a chapter in that reference, so that the link is from the chapter title and not from the book title. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Any pics of the interior?
 * To come - taken, but not uploaded to Commons yet, currently not on own computer. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The motorways in the map look incongruous in this article, is there no alternative pushpin map?
 * Not as far as I know. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall looks pretty good. I hope you have got it right, because I've just started a church article (Saint Nicholas, Blakeney) which I'd like to take to FA eventually, and I've modelled it on this. If it all goes pear-shaped, I'll blame you (:

Good luck  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

 * 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):