Jump to content

Talk:Church of St Nicholas, Sapareva Banya/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for devoting your time and looking forward to your review! Toдor Boжinov 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A short, but interesting, well-referenced and well-illustrated article on a local church.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    I did a couple of minor edits to improve the grammar.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Yes, however the WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article (which it did well) and to summarise the main points of the article. I copied a pasted a few words from the Architecture section into the Lead, as it did not provide much in the way of a summary.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    Yes, but there may be a problem with reference 2, used five times, my web brower gives an error message - "The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded".
  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:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and well illustrated article.

Thanks for your review and lead expansion! I figure you were unable to access the ref 2 URL because part of the address is in Cyrillic. I'll WebCite all URLs in the article so that we don't lose them in the future :) Best, Toдor Boжinov 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]