Talk:St Mary's Church, Llanfair Mathafarn Eithaf/GA1

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm back to have another go at another of Bencherlite's church articles!

I will start by adding a framework listing the GA criteria, and then assess against each criteria. In all but the best and worst articles I expect to find at least minor ways that the article should be improved prior to getting the tick. It may take me anywhere from a couple of hours to several days to complete the initial review, depending on RL commitments. Each criterion will be marked with a red cross until I have assessed that the article meets or exceeds the criterion, at which time the cross will be changed to a green tick. When the initial review is complete I will let the nominator know via a message on his or her talk page. Thank you for your patience.

 :
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * The prose quality is excellent and spelling and grammar are correct. I have one suggested improvement (below) but addressing it is not required to meet the GA criteria.
 * (Not required for GA) - "one bell dated 1849" - Do you mean that the bell has been dated to 1849, or that the date 1849 is stamped on the bell?
 * (b) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * This article complies with the manuals of style for lead sections, layout and words to watch.
 * The manuals of style for lists and fiction do not apply to this article.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All sources appear in a dedicated and appropriately described section.
 * (b) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All content appears to be attributed to reliable sources through inline citations.
 * (c) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * There is no evidence of original research in this article.

:
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16 px]]
 * The article covers all topics expected of an article of this kind. I am not aware of relevant information covered by reliable sources which this article does not touch on.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * The article does not go into inappropriate detail.

.
 * The article covers an uncontroversial topic, and I am unaware of any relevant viewpoints which are not mentioned in the article.

.
 * The article does not change swiftly and does not appear to be the subject of any unresolved dispute.

: 
 * (a) ; [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * All images currently in the article are appropriately tagged and captioned.
 * (b) . [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * Resolved - Criterion 6 requires that "the article is illustrated, if possible, by images". It does not require that there must be images, but it does require that if appropriately licensed images are readily available that they should be included.  Can you assure me that you have performed good faith searches for a usable image of the church, and been unsuccessful? (If so there will be no problem changing this to a tick.)



Overview - An excellent article; it passes all GA criteria on the first try. I will accordingly promote the article to GA status. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses

 * Images - see the pre-emptive comment on the talk page. In short, of course I've looked! BencherliteTalk 18:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed that. Thanks!  Will tick for that then. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)