Talk:Towson United Methodist Church/GA

GA review 1

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

jackturner3 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks, I have addressed these suggestions for renom of the article as a GA candidate  JGHowes talk  -  18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review, Part 2

 * 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:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * jackturner3 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review 3
I've read through the article, and everything looks pretty good. I think all of the suggestions brought up by the previous reviewer have been addressed in the article. I only have a few more suggestions:


 * Renovation and expansion project might be better as a subheader under Current building and facilities...they are based on the same overall subject: the building itself. ✅
 * Is it possible to get authors for the articles from The Baltimore Sun?
 * Not provided, regrettably the Sun publishes most articles without reporter bylines; those cites lacking authors had no byline giving this information.


 * The lead is supposed to summarize all the main points of the article, so adding some information about the current pastor, building, and outreach would be good.
 * ✅, an excellent point; I've expanded it to be more of an article summary per WP:LEAD.

That's about all. I'll put the article on hold for seven days for improvements. Nikki 311  23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review, Nikki. Responses above (inline)  JGHowes talk  -  00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. It is not a big deal about the authors; I was just curious. Looks like the third time's the charm...congratulations on a Good Article! Nikki  311  01:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)