Talk:St. James Church (Queens)/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: CPClegg (talk · contribs) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

CPClegg, thanks for the initial comments. I should note that the interior isn't publicly accessible and there are no images of it on Commons. These images are the only ones available for use. Do you have suggestions for anything that seems too detailed or out of sync with MOS? I look forward to the feedback. epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPClegg: Did you have any further comments? It has been a month since your last comments. epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius Yes, sorry about the delay.

List "Old St. James' Church" as the only alternative name in the article and infobox as the others are either generic names or denominational names.
- Done

Give the date of the church's decommissioning in the lead section.
- Done

Swap the places of the "Design" and "History" sections: the reverse order is more usual in good and featured articles on historic buildings.
- Done

In "American Revolution and 19th century", remove "or the parish's lands" after "glebe" as the link explains it and give William IV's name as "the Duke of Clarence", his title at the time.
- Done

It may be worthwhile to remove the details of the building's development from the "History" section and either incroporate them where appropriate throughout the "Design" section or create therein an "Architectural history" subsection.
- The possible issue is that this article is mainly about the St. James Episcopal Church's original building, rather than about the congregation. I'm planning to write the information about the congregation later. When that happens, this article would probably benefit from being renamed, too. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references are excellent and thorough.

The illustrations are good but do any of the sources show the historic appearance of the church? If so, the images are likely to be in the public domain and would really add to the article.
- Yes, there are almost definitely images that show such an appearance. I'll upload them soon. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to find a list of clergy of St James'? I think it would be a helpful addition to the article.
- I could do that, but again, it may be better off in an article about the congregation. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@CPClegg: Thanks for the comments. I've replied to most of them. epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

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)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Sure, I was waiting to see if epicgenius had found any older illustrations but as those illustrations aren't essential to the criteria, I'd be happy to go ahead with the review anyway. CPClegg (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPClegg, sorry about that, I forgot to respond. I haven't found any older illustrations just yet, but I'll keep looking. epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CPClegg. It sounds like the review can proceed now, which is great. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

epicgenius, Bluemoonset With apologies for my dithering, here's the review.

Well written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- Yes
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Yes

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- Yes
all inline 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;
- Yes
it contains no original research; and
- Yes
it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
- Yes

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- Yes
it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Yes

Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Yes

Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Yes

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- Yes
media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- Yes

CPClegg (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.