Talk:Old Pine Church/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Move Geography section up to before history and rename Location. Makes more sense I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Done! Thank you for the suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Why is "union church." italicized? A link?
  • "Union church" was in quotations in the source cited, so I left the quotations in the article's prose. The original source probably places quote marks on "union church" because churches in the region named "Union Church" are usually churches utilized by more than one denomination. -- Caponer (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Repetition of utilize.
  • Only four uses of "utilize" remain in the prose. -- Caponer (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

History

• "Purgitsville continued to develop throughout the course of the 19th century, during which time it grew to include a small store, a post office, a blacksmith shop, and a trading post." I thought you said it was founded as a trading post yet here you say over time is grew to include a trading post?
  • This has been corrected. I've removed the second mention of the trading post, as the community as a whole began as a "trading post." -- Caponer (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• " Old Pine Church structure may have also been built as a meeting place for Brethren adherents, known as "Dunkers" or "Dunkards."[7][8][9] It is believed that Old Pine Church was also utilized by German Methodists." -you seem less certain of this here than in the lead, you may want to alter it slightly in the lead which states that it was , rather than believed to have been.
  • Done! I corrected the lead to read "The church is believed to have been utilized by German Methodist settlers." -- Caponer (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren, which utilized the church, was organized by Dr. Leatherman" -not sure what you mean here, if they were the congregation using the church how would they be organized? Perhaps reword that "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren were in use of the church, led by Dr. Leatherman?
  • Done! I've reworded the sentence in keeping with your suggestion. -- Caponer (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Old Pine Church continued to utilize the church and worship there".... "Old Pine Church was reportedly utilized as a school in the early 20th century". Too much repetition of utilized, used or occupy really does look better in this context.
  • Done! I've removed some of the instances of "utilize" to lessen the repetition. -- Caponer (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Architecture

• What are you referring to with " three nine-over-six " Feet?
  • "Nine-over-six" refers to the panes of glass in the window sashes. The top sash of the window consists of nine panes of glass, and the bottom sash of the window consists of six panes of glass. -- Caponer (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "The pews are supported by three arched footers, which are joined to the seat by a mortise joint reinforced with nails. The pews are supported by three arched footers. " Repetition, what is a footer and mortise joint? Link?
  • Done! I've removed the repetition, and I've linked the terms in the sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery

Some quite short sentences in this section which affect flow a bit, you might consider merging a few sentences and giving a copyedit.

• • Done! I've reorganized the content in the Cemetery section and created a third paragraph. -- Caponer (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent work, clearly looks up to GA standard!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, thank you again for such an excellent review of this article! I've addressed all your above comments and suggestions, and I feel that you've significantly improved this article as you always do! Please let me know if you have any outstanding questions or concerns. -- Caponer (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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:

Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Blofeld! As always, it's been a pleasure working with you throughout this process! -- Caponer (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)