The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: CPClegg ( talk · contribs) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I will post a more detailed review of the article. For now, it seems well-cited with good sources, neutral, stable, mostly well-written, and sufficiently broad. It is, however, excessively detailed in places on issues incidental to the church itself and out of line from the style guide in others. The article could also stand to be better illustrated with images other than the exterior of the church.
Let me know what you think of those then I can review the article for good article status. CPClegg ( talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
CPClegg, epicgenius, where does this review stand? It's been open for two months today, and it seems to be four weeks since anything was posted here. Any way we can get this moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
epicgenius, Bluemoonset With apologies for my dithering, here's the review.
Well written:
Verifiable with no original research:
Broad in its coverage:
Neutral:
Stable:
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
CPClegg ( talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: CPClegg ( talk · contribs) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I will post a more detailed review of the article. For now, it seems well-cited with good sources, neutral, stable, mostly well-written, and sufficiently broad. It is, however, excessively detailed in places on issues incidental to the church itself and out of line from the style guide in others. The article could also stand to be better illustrated with images other than the exterior of the church.
Let me know what you think of those then I can review the article for good article status. CPClegg ( talk) 17:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
CPClegg, epicgenius, where does this review stand? It's been open for two months today, and it seems to be four weeks since anything was posted here. Any way we can get this moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
epicgenius, Bluemoonset With apologies for my dithering, here's the review.
Well written:
Verifiable with no original research:
Broad in its coverage:
Neutral:
Stable:
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
CPClegg ( talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)