Talk:St Mary's Church, Nantwich/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:

On the whole I really rather liked the article, and would really like to pass it for GA. Not all of the concerns listed above are essential, but if possible I think a bit more on present uses and a slightly better flow to the text would help. I'll put it on hold for a week, as I can't imagine that there will be much (if any) trouble making the small adjustments for GA. - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA Review
First of all, many thanks for picking up the article and commenting so quickly. I thought I might have to wait the usual few weeks or more!


 * 1A I've had a go at improving the stilted flow. To a degree this results from trying to write from sources which can be cited.  Anyway, I've tried to improve the flow. I hope it is good enough.
 * 1B Architectural sources use capitalised Decorated etc as a convention. In fact it can be useful to differentiate between Decorated (as a style) and decorated (as an adjective).  See my amendments to "Structure" to see how this works.  As this is an article in the architecture genre, I feel the convention should be used.
 * 3A When the source material is unbalanced, it's a bit difficult to make the sections of similar length. I have been let down by Images of England, which usually has loads of info about the architecture; in this case it is minimal.  I've added some stuff (a bit idiosyncratic) from Pevsner to "Structure".  I've also found a bit more to add to the "Present day" section.  To add more to the latter would just be to reproduce what's on the links, which is really a waste of time.
 * 6B Images have been a problem. Ironically I visited the church last week (unexpectedly) without a camera.  I have found little in the way of free-use images. But this is counteracted by the additional material I have added in the "Present day" and "External links" sections.  The photos by Craig Thornber are particularly good.  I hope that the links will fill the gap.

Further comments welcomed. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The flow is much improved. I know what you mean about the problems of sourcing getting in the way: the joining words which are fine in original research are often extremely inappropriate here. That aside, I expected "Decorated" was the standard, but I figured I'd better check with you either way, and I certainly understand the problems of balance caused by a necessary reliance on the sources: I think the changes you made do more than enough to redress the balance, though, so it is all good now. :) Anyway, I'm more than happy to pass the article. It seems easily enough to qualify for GA. - Bilby (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)