Talk:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I will review this article. It's an interesting and beautiful building, and since I love church architecture, I'm honored to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This is a nice article about a beautiful building that's full of history and significance to the city of Atlanta.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- I did a spot-check on a few of the sources; from what I looked at, it looks like this article is meticuloously sourced. Nice job.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- I'm AGF about this, since I don't know enough about the topic to review if it's broad enough. It looks likely that the editors followed the research; nice job.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Vwey stable.
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images are fine for GA, although I have one question/suggestion. There are only four images and a map; are there more images available of the building (inside and out), its surroundings, and of the people mentioned? With such a historic building, I wonder if there are free images or images in the common domain? The one article about a historic church that I successfully brought through FAC (Stanford Memorial Church), has bunches of images and it's only 120 years old. Like I said, just a suggestion, perhaps to make this article pop more.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Such an easy pass and a pleasure to read. If you could expand it a bit more, it'd be good for FAC, I think. Best of luck as you work on more sacred spaces in Atlanta.
- Pass or Fail:
