Wikipedia:Peer review/St Padarn's Church, Llanbadarn Fawr/archive1

St Padarn's Church, Llanbadarn Fawr
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I have written this page over a period of several years, have expanded it recently, and I'd like it reviewed.

Thanks, Ncox (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take this review on, but I've decided that it makes most sense to do some of the minor copyedits to the article myself; I'll then post the remaining issues here when I'm done. I hope it doesn't sound as if I think it has a lot wrong with it; in fact it's an excellent piece of work. Ham II (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What's Grid reference SN 599809. doing in the lede? Also, are there any notable people associated with the church after 1909, that is, The church today? I'm just judging from other Featured Articles of churches which have sections on people. (St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch / Stanford Memorial Church) starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You've obviously done a lot of research on this subject, & if it were simply a matter of amount of information this would easily be FA class. However, getting this to GA or FA class requires more than simply amount of information.
 * Comments by llywrch
 * There are several parts that would be better delivered to the end reader if they were moved to the related article. If you were writing a pamphlet or a webpage about the church, this would not be so distracting. For example, the section on Padarn would benefit if you were to take most of the content of that section & move it to that article. All you need in this article is a brief summary of his life, when he lived, & his probable relationship to the church. And this section would be best served by adding the template Main to the top. Another passage would be the paragraph about the manufacturer of the church organ, Forster and Andrews -- the brief paragraph in this article is a better history of the company than what the article provides.
 * Related to this, a lot of the footnotes explaining things are unnecessary. They are best used to provide reliable sources for statements in the main text. For example the footnote on the Welsh Triads duplicates the information in the linked article; if the reader needs more information about the Welsh Triads, she/he will read the article. (When I followed the footnote, I was expecting to find out where in the book Llanbadarn Fawr was mentioned. I happen to own a copy.)
 * There are many instances of needless duplicate links to the same article. While the usual practice is only one link to another article, in long articles it may be useful to have more links, but not more than one per section.
 * I found the description of the architecture of the church confusing. It is difficult to provide a description of a structure as detailed as you have attempted. However, trimming the details you provided & finding a way to present it better would help.
 * BTW, I don't see the point of all of the photos of the exterior walls of the church. One photo might work to show that the church was built of stone & mortar, but this many photos would be of use only if you were writing a comprehensive description for an archeological or architectural monograph. (Although I found the pictures showing the foundations of a previous structure interesting.)
 * Lastly, too many of your statements have needless qualifications. Too often "possibly" or "perhaps" appear in this article. I would rephrase these to "X suggests" or "If A then we can conclude Y". (There was one passage where the hemming & hawing was notably excessive, but I could not recover it.)

Hope these help. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)