Talk:St Caffo's Church, Llangaffo

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review
Good articleSt Caffo's Church, Llangaffo has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 9, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that St Caffo's Church, Llangaffo, Wales, commemorates St Caffo who was martyred in the area in the 6th century?

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:St Caffo's Church, Llangaffo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • What is meant exactly by an "Early English style". Are their any architectural elements which have a formal name?
  • You might consider splitting the section from "The 19th-century church is still in use and belongs to the Church in Wales. " into a Services section.
  • The section is named"History and location". I had expected to see a brief location description. Can you add a sentence to say the church is located xxxx miles south of xxxx near the xxxx etc in both the lead and this section? Example: The church is located along the B4419 road in the northern part of the village of Llangaffo, roughly 5 miles northwest of Caernarfon by air. Please also note this in the lead.
  • Added what I can.
  • I'd rather not, for consistency with other articles in the series which all have the same sectioning.
  • Ooops, forgot that. Added.
How's it looking now? BencherliteTalk 14:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's fine, nice job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

This is a quality article which meets all of the GA criteria, short, but very well focused and written, the way an encyclopedia article should be. It's not ready for FA though yet, I think more detail would be needed for that. Good job, I'm promoting this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply