Talk:St Melangell's Church/GA1

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

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Reviewing later (reminder for me) Geardona (talk to me?) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; width:50em"

! height=50 | GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) Overall: Pass/Fail: ! height=30| · ·  ·
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): no huge problems I can see, auto ed came up with nothing. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):, just did a few spot checks of the online sources, dont see any problems. b (citations to reliable sources): A few yellow sources, but nothing huge, all of the tagged yellow sources are fine. c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):  ran it through earwigs
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects):, the articlr leaces nothing I can think of untouched b (focused): ,, fixed by nom, sections are all consistently on topic, no huge suprises when opening a section, you can find what you need by section title.
 * 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):
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * style="text-align:center;" |
 * }
 * The text seems to wander off in some sections.
 * @Geardona could you give more detailed feedback on where the text becomes unfocused? I could certainly go ahead & trim some sections (eg the veneration of hares paragraph) but I'd like to hear what specifically you think could be changed. sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure! The location section needs to be refocused a little, and possible make the thing about the namesake of the area a section. Geardona (talk to me?) 20:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The location section is quite short - do you think it could simply be renamed to something like "location and surroundings" to more accurately reflect the contents of the section? Also, I can definitely make Melangell into a section. sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would make the scope more defined for both! (ping me when done) Geardona (talk to me?) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geardona done! sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would make the scope more defined for both! (ping me when done) Geardona (talk to me?) 20:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geardona done! sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)