Talk:North Christian Church/GA1: Difference between revisions

 

Line 18: Line 18:

#I think an Infobox church template should be used, with the NRHP infobox embedded within it. <span style=”font-family: Cambria;”> [[User:Abductive|<span style=”color: teal;”>”’Abductive”'</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

#I think an Infobox church template should be used, with the NRHP infobox embedded within it. <span style=”font-family: Cambria;”> [[User:Abductive|<span style=”color: teal;”>”’Abductive”'</span>]] ([[User talk:Abductive|reasoning]])</span> 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

#:Both good points, I can fix these. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

#:Both good points, I can fix these. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

==== Review ====

{| class=”wikitable” style=”width: 100%; width:50em”

|-

! height=50 | [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review<br>{{small|(see [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|here]] for what the criteria are, and [[WP:GACN|here]] for what they are not)}}

|-

|

#It is ”’reasonably well written”’.

#:a ”(prose, spelling, and grammar)”: {{GAList/check|<!–y–>}}<br/> b ”([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[WP:LEAD|lead]], [[WP:LAYOUT|layout]], [[WP:WTW|word choice]], [[WP:WAF|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|lists]])”: {{GAList/check|}}

#It is ”’factually accurate”’ and ”'[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]”’, as shown by a [[WP:GAN/I#R3|source spot-check]].

#:a ”(references)”: {{GAList/check|}} <br/>b ”(citations to [[WP:RS|reliable sources]])”: {{GAList/check|}} <br/>c ”([[Wikipedia:No original research|OR]])”: {{GAList/check|}} <br/>d ”([[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyvio]] and [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|plagiarism]])”: {{GAList/check|}}

#It is ”’broad in its coverage”’.

#:a ”(major aspects)”: {{GAList/check|}} <br/>b ”(focused)”: {{GAList/check|}}

#It follows the ”'[[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] policy”’.

#:”Fair representation without bias”: {{GAList/check|}}

#It is ”’stable”’.

#:”No edit wars, etc.”: {{GAList/check|}}

#It is illustrated by ”'[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]”’, where possible and appropriate.

#:a ”(images are tagged and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline|fair use rationales]])”: {{GAList/check|}} <br/>b ”(appropriate use with [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]])”: {{GAList/check|}}

|-

| style=”text-align:center;” |

”’Overall”’:<br/>

”Pass/Fail”: {{GAList/check|}}<!– Template:GAReview –>

|-

|-

! height=30|[[File:Symbol_support_vote.svg|15px]] · [[File:Symbol_oppose_vote.svg|15px]] · [[File:Symbol_wait.svg|15px]] · [[File:Symbol_neutral_vote.svg|15px]]

|-

|}

<!– Please add all review comments below this comment, and do not alter what is above. So that the review can be kept within a single section, please do not use level 2 headers (==…==) below to break up the review. Use level 3 (===…===), level 4 and so on. Template:GAN/preload

===Copyvio?===

===Image review===

===Source review===–> [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 23:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) 08:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Epicgenius, I was impressed by the DYK, both text and image, and have recently been persuaded to also review for GA and not only write them. I would like to begin with this one, if you are willing to have patience with someone new to it. Please let me know. – I haven’t looked at this article yet, but at your others 😉 —Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for taking up this review. I appreciate it – actually, commentary from reviewers who haven’t seen my articles is welcome, since it gives a new perspective on things. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I checked the coordinates, and they failed to point to the object. Since this is the only factoid I checked, the article could still have errors of basic facts. Abductive (reasoning) 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for fixing the coordinates. Since I rewrote everything except the infobox, I had not changed the coordinates. However, if there are any other errors of basic facts that you find, please point them out. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. The article appears to have been Assessed as B-Class with no actual discussion. This suggests some sort of slop, lack of knowledge, or disregard for Wikipedia’s guidelines. Abductive (reasoning) 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   There are a few things to unpack here. The assessment of an article is not something that is reviewed in the GA criteria. According to the guideline WP:ASSESS, Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to boldly set any quality rating that they believe is appropriate, except for the GA, FA, and A-class ratings, so a discussion was not required. This is a more appropriate discussion for the talk page, where Coldupnorth has already replied to you. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. The height of the prominent spire, which may or may not be 192 feet, should be mentioned earlier in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think an Infobox church template should be used, with the NRHP infobox embedded within it. Abductive (reasoning) 09:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Both good points, I can fix these. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]